se 


AMSAT 
202585513 
doe $29 | 


raWatete ranatanyierenpayegnisstetee Tom 
eon ee EPI 


Fy 
ararehvtsrarvern 


S 
a 


‘> 

* 
3b S39 
aes 


AIA es Seek s : Se yo 
iseraneat ; : pe le i 
: annie 
NPP. vit 
panne 


PIII PR 


eaten 


Serr rrcesr td 
sitesi: 
bee 


ECs: 


ae 


BA 


Peeat eS T ENE 


PRPS PP es 
ea tr 


Waresnnee ee saan Se 


LI PIP RASA IS BAERS IT 


ree 


a : ay essere 4 wbedichs < “ 4 eka ik ee 


Senet 
arn esNie aas 
Seana 
nary 


TS reper ieanen 


- Ms ~ > . 5 cS 
Daneel cbereeds 


PII P ELIS IL, on 
OETA NANA EIDE EOL EPL 
eee teres 


Pomerat 
weer er hes 
sven 


te S - aretnpplopianst jan wie7 
arvana 


Lo PP ES PS SOR OPTS SEB ILIAD 


PENNE NaN Oe TEN SRETE ADT W TENORS 


eos 

aren oni 
: ester ere eres oe, Sy SS 
na aa OO ENE at aie iadadicekgpbessuatabiterhbietectaniiheea sada ae vs 
- eet DiS erie arian te mete: 


a RCN PPO 
TONNE Roe PO Re als RE 
ee 


APPT eS 
pean aneee ate 


cen we ele! 


oO eto 8 EP 


arenes 


Pras! 


pee eosas 


‘ poaawemnh Spoedwew 
So OR ne 


PRA E IOS EI AE OI SO 
Deena GONE TNT 


en nee Ome ene awh 


ad 


oe Mae we ee 


Seeger 


ot 


Leer 


rare rN me? 


rade 


Litessp tonbcpeg oocepus stearic 
Kw fee ver ey wee Do 


peters sk Metes , tae te 
SOS OF NS g Se ene mw 


« ne 


2 ie ns Se eee : ; : 
Sonar se 3 ; aor aan ; typed PB? 9 
Sons mate. pan ‘ " tom: : 7 o wo a ) pager 
ieee Pees ns 2 mph ae ty ‘ ras i 
as ; - Sob ee os. Ser3 
‘ pa i eee a We , 


bl Dye OT i 1, SRL SS “ 
a" a Ft oh ele ¢ og 


——— foe yr’ 
1 EAN ane et 


af Ap 
~ <a 


4 ‘ mS < 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 


Poaiy.s 
i 


in 2022 with funding from 


Princeton Theological Seminary Libre 


https://archive.org/details/ch ristianapologyO3sche 


» * . 


| 


be ae 


i? ~ ba . 
1 2 Wh oe al a 
rere ee a 


a 


wae 


at 


A CHRISTIAN APOLOGY. 


A 


CHRISTIAN APOLOGY 


BY 


PAUL’ SCHANZ, D.D., D.Pu., 


PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF TUBINGEN, 


TRANSLATED BY 


REV. MICHAEL F. GLANCEY, 


INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS IN THE DIOCESE OF BIRMINGHAM, 


AND 


REV. VICTOR J. SCHOBEL, D.D., 


PROFESSOR OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY AT ST. MARY’S, OSCOTT. 


IN THREE VOLUMES. 


Vou. IJ].—Tue Cuurcu: 


SECOND REVISED EDITION. 


Fr. PUSTET & CO), 
3 NEW YORK AND CINCINNATI. 


1896, 


ET 


¢ 
,* 


“1892, . 


>. 


irm Fr. PusT 


+ 
t) 


ght 


oN 
, 1 
By E, STEINBACK, of the F 


yt 


ae 
op 


rs 
Yer 


& Co. 


pr ve 
i 


a. 


, 


aie 


wh , yy 


~ 


a 


a 
‘ "\ bad ' ’ ¥ " . 
7 - 
, > . 4 a¢ 
te « - 
y - P ~ 
- ‘ » na) ae Ae 
ke iy ‘ oe 2. ~~ et - So 
g na" . . OP i... i 7 
lu ‘ pa ree = 
8 . " MA ir 
i 7 6 1 
= : fm < oe & 
~*~ J a ” ‘ “ ‘ 
\ - — 
‘ ee — 
, ae iv = . , 
- : - i - 
: , P. ‘ » 2 , rad 
po 7 F. c ~<a ‘es ‘ 
- ye pt a 7, ms 
we 7» " eA ae 
Ig 7 — af 7 a.) 7 
Fi < ’ = J 
Me : es ‘ : 
~* re . * - : “ 
sigs. : 
« = i ’ rn c 
‘ 2 r a *y 7 % ‘ 
* * . | 4 ‘ 
ye “ins £ 
¥ 4d nt 5" 
= - 
F ' ‘ \ a 
4 - J 
is a ‘ a ? 
. 7 ~_ be j ' Es 
s " 4 
. , ' . 3 ‘ A - 
= manad ¢ 
ip . 
2 ~ 5 wt 
ip § 
. L- "« 
- « = 
¥ i é 
" - 
a 2 { . 
7 t a - i x f 
; Si ¥ 
. FS 
fad ; y . 
t f : = N & 
. = F < 5 ~ 7. 
Hcy, See eS oe, F Ls 
: is / . 
‘ 
pas vr 
* , 4 -¥ 
) ’ a pe 4; ‘ 5- 
= By ; Oe are 
- 4 - - > ‘ 
=. > ’ 34 s = Fs F + | yA 
ee es is Ae i ee =e 
- i > | ¢ Ss” «2 | @ — all 


TRANSLATORS PREFACE. 


B 


This third, and last, volume of Dr. Schanz’s 
Christian Apology deals with the Church. Apart 
from the inherent importance of its subject, the 
volume may fairly claim the attentive interest of 
every English student of Theology, because of 
its close inward connection with an Apology that 
not only breaks new ground, but is also the first 
of its kind, as we believe, in the English language. 

The author’s manner of treatment is especially 
commendable for its logical clearness and consis- 
tency. His subject is introduced by a preliminary 
chapter of great importance, and serving as a basis 
for all that follows, on the. Finality of Christian 
Revelation and the Development of Christian 
Belief. The Church is the connecting link be- 
tween Revelation in the abstract and Revelation 
in the concrete—between vague faith in an un- 
defined cloud of revealed doctrine, and precise 
belief in a catena of definite truths. In dealing 
with the Church the author scrupulously adheres 
to the strict historical method. The Kingdom of 
God upon earth gradually rises before our eyes in 
growing distinctness from the first shadowy outline 


ii. PREFACE. 


prophetically thrown upon the history of the past, 
to the brightness of the perfect. plan revealed in 
its actual completeness. We behold Christ build- 
ing it up, stone by stone, from its inception in the 
home of the Holy Family at Nazareth, till its 
glorious Dedication amid the flashing fires of the 
Spirit at Pentecost. Pentecost, says the author, 
witnessed, not its birth, but its crowning and 
consecration, From a study of this work of Christ 
we learn the true definition of the Church as a 
living reality. All along we are dealing with 
facts. ‘The Church grows out of a real Christ into 
a real thing. We follow Him with our eyes as 
He draws men to Himself, filling them with 
wisdom and grace; moulding, shaping, and sub- 
duing their character ; absorbing them into His 
purpose, and assimilating them into one body that 
lives in the pervading strength of His Spirit. 
Beneath our gaze the Church arises, and we see 
projected, as on a plane, her nature and constitu- 
tion, her office and work, her attributes and power, 
The new living organisation of the Apostolic 
college is the Church—it is Christ still living 
visibly in our midst, with like power and the self- 
same office. We thus understand what is meant 
by the Unity, Apostolicity, Catholicity, Infallibility 
of the Church; and we gain a view of the Church, 
that is not only true to fact and nature, but is also 
definite, consistent and harmonious. 

In the question of the Church does every 


PREFACE. iii. 


religious controversy centre. Here we are at the 
parting of the ways. Every reputed Church is 
either of Christ or of Belial, and we must commit 
ourselves wholly to one or to the other. [tis not 


”) 
e 


lawful ‘“‘to run.after many lovers Here, if any- 
where, does the saying hold in all its force: “ Be- 
“ cause thou art luke-warm, and neither cold, nor 
“hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.” 
Not to gather with Christ, is=to: scatter: @ [tis 
certainly good and useful for a Christian Apologist 
to deal with particular truths; but all particular 
“questions are simply dwarfed and lose their impor- 
tance when in presence of the paramount and all 
momentous question of the true Church. This is 
the master-point from which alone we can survey 
the wide sweep of revelation. Viewed from here, 
all teachers, all sects, all protestants, find their due 
location—Leo and Arius; Nicholas and Photius; 
Trent and the Confessio Augustana; the Vatican 
and Exeter Hall, or Lambeth Palace, or the 
Metropolitan Tabernacle. [From the very nature 
of the Christian religion this must be so; for, not 
only has the Christian revelation never existed 
otherwise than in a religious community—in the 
Church of Christ,—but the very institution of that 
community is a fact which, like the fact of the In- 
carnation, forms a main portion of the Christian 
revelation itself. Therefore must every religious 
community justify its existence, in the face both of 
reason and of revelation. It must show its begin- 


iv. PREFACE. 


nings—its living root, as the same definite Church, 
in the past. It must produce the charter of its 
unequivocal right to the full possession of the truth 
that was once for all revealed and committed to 
its authoritative keeping. It cannot advance one 
step till its feet have been set on the firm and solid 
ground of an origin undeniably divine. Every 
communion must, at the very outset, grapple with 
the historical challenge of Tertullian: edant 
origines suas. Nought else will avail—no ad 
captandum assertions; no unauthorised assump- 
tions of authority ; no beaming light of a royal 
countenance; no decrees of a Privy Council. 
What reasonable or prudent man wiil commit 
himself to an eternal issue—and here the issues are 
eternal—on the strength of anything less than a 
clearly credible and exclusive authority to teach ? 
The fact of a divine origin must, with perfect 
clearness, be established by an impartial and 
relentless logic. To trust to some probable, or 
conjectural, but untraced, link of connection with 
the past—to some problematical continuity that is 
supposed to find its way through the obscure 
mists surrounding, for instance, a defunct British 
Church—to act thus is most blindly to leap from 
inner into outer darkness. The feverish and 
frenzied assertions of continuity, that are heard 
arising from certain quarters, are so many frantic 
witnesses to a sober truth. This truth is the key 
of the whole position, Let the true Church be 


PREFACE, Vv. 


once found, and her voice once heard—and all 
doubt and hesitation will cease. The conscientious 
and earnest man will no longer find himself 
committed to the dreary task, ever beginning and 
never ending, of painfully searching out the claims 
of each apparent truth for himself, only to discover 
at last that he holds nothing by firm unwavering 
faith, but either by the loose and feeble grasp of 
slippery opinion, or, as the case may be, with the 
quivering tenacity of alarm and blank despair. 
Who wrote the books of the New Testament v. gr. 
the Epistles? Were the unknown writers inspired ? 
Are these books, indeed, the undoubted Word of 
God? How is this made clear to men? And 
what of the Old Testament Scriptures? Who 
were their authors? By what unfailing and 
absolutely reliable principle is the Canon of Scrip- 
ture to be determined? How is a good simple 
soul enabled so to steer his bark amid these stormy 
waters as safely to arrive on the firm shore of an 
immovable faith? All questions are resolved into 
the one clear issue of Church authority. Of side- 
issues, of shirking and shuffling, of unmeaning 
vagueness and unwarranted assumption, we are 
weary almost to death. 

Of course, this important matter has not been 
altogether overlooked. Much has been said and 
written about the Church, about her voice and 
authority, her beauty, her unfailing wealth of truth 
and grace. Anglicans are not unfrequently eloquent 


vi. PREFACE. 


in this department. Would they were as precise 
as they are eloquent! But the misfortune is that 
they never tell us what is the Church. It now 
appears to be something-concrete, real and palpable, 
but so soon as we attempt to touch it, it becomes 
a mere vague something of religious beauty and 
floats away through the lofty inaccessible.regions 
of the abstract and ideal. The Church must have 
had a clear meaning once; but now that meaning 
is as dark as the Sphinx’s riddle. Thus the Rev. 
W. H. Stanton, Ely Professor of Divinity in the 
University of Cambridge, will write on ‘The 
Place of Authority in Matters of Religious Belief,’ 
with a view to proving the necessity and reason- 
ableness of listening to the wozce of the Church, but 
declines, as his Reviewer, not without astonishment, 
remarks, to enter into an examination ‘of the true 
idea and definition of the Church.” * Occasionally, 
as in W. Burton Pope’s ‘Higher Catechism’ such 
an examination is attempted; and ends in the 
only too visible embarrassment of the writer. 
The Essayists of Lux AZundi afford no exception 
in the history of failure. They sail proudly along 
on a flood of phrase concerning the Church, her 
voice and authority, her office and power in the 
world, but when confronted with the questions: 
But what Church? And what authority? And 
how is it all proved ?—they are miserably silent. 
Why are they so timid? Of what are they afraid ? 


* “The Thinker,” March, 1892, No. 3, Pe 335- 


PREFACE, Vii. 


Why do they shrink back? Even their own 
friends can see the fatuity of this ostrich-like pro- 
Gecding. oaysithe -Rev.a fia |euLiaseMAAY tt the 
mistake made by the Reformed Churches is 
becoming yet more evident at the present time. 
For the doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture is 
everywhere being energetically attacked, and 1s 
daily becoming more and more difficult to defend. 
Cur present position is one of great peril. Men 
find the ground giving way under their feet, and 
there is danger of a headlong stampede to infidelity 
or to Rome, according as the non-religious or 
_ religious elements in our minds are the stronger.” 
And again: ‘The Church of England has occupied 
a position midway between the two disputants (_.e. 
between Rome and the Reformed Churches). There 
has always been a considerable number of her 
members inclined to fall back upon Church author- 
ity. But when confronted with. the question what 
Church authority, and how is its voice to make 
itself heard, they have often been inclined to give 
contradictory or evasive answers, Yet there can be 
little doubt that they were in the main right (?). 
The Roman Catholic view is clearly untenable” (?) 
We can admire the robust boldness of his cool 
unproved assumption that the claim of Rome is 
clearly untenable. But it is not as a model of 
boldness that we have quoted him. We have 
quoted him as an unimpeachable witness to the 
logical difficulty of the Anglican position, and to 


Vill. PREFACE. 


the manner in which Anglicans have attempted 
either to evade or to leap that difficulty. The 
position is this. Christianity is a necessity—hence 
we must secure it. The authority of Seripture is 
crumbling away—but Christianity itself is ever- 
living and true. It lives in the living authority of 
the Church. Yet that Church is evidently—as we 
shall assume—not the Church of Rome. Therefore 
it must—as the Anglican position demands—be 
somewhere found in the Anglican establishment. 
This is surely nothing else but the last wild move- 
ment of a mind hopelessly baffled in its search for 
truth. How else can we account for the distressing 
fact that men in their sober senses should set their 
immortal hopes at hazard on the flimsy strength of 
such reasonings! How vastly different it all is in 
the Church of Rome! How superior the method 
of her Theologians! No Babel of ‘contradictory 
or evasive answers” which, in spite of being contra- 
dictory, are yet, by some logical legerdemain, found 
to be right in the main. Pursuing their course 
with fearless courage and inexorable science, the 
Roman Theologians arrive at an assured and 
unanimous conclusion. The Church is clearly 
manifest in the brightness of her authority and in 
the infallibility of her teaching office. Her visible 
Head is known. We can put our hands on the 
very throne of her power. 


PREFACE, 1X. 


Bie 


In the recent Bampton Lectures, Mr. Gore 
essays to go a step further than his fellows in the 
way of explanation. He deals at length with the 
question of the Church, her function and authority. 
The upshot of his remarks is, that the Church 
rightly used her infallible power of defining doctrine 
at Nicaea, Ephesus and Chalcedon, but not at 
Trent or the Vatican Council. A plain man would 
have thought that the Church’s office and duty, 
as an infallible teacher, was perpetual; that it 
must be as living and necessary, as patent and 
effective in the roth century as in the fourth. 
But Mr. Gore completely puzzles us. Janus is 
outfaced. Even the Church smiles confidence only 
to betray. We walk for awhile under the shadow of 
her watchful protection, to be at length abandoned 
and sent wandering along unknown paths beneath 
the scorching rays. The Church was used to speak 
as the living teacher of mankind. But now for 
a long time, since a remote date not yet specified, 
she has been dumb. Her voice has gradually died 
away, or is no longer distinguishable! But we 
must consider the arguments with which Mr. Gore 
seeks to establish his theory. He rejects, as do 
we, the lifeless notion that we should at once return 
to the primitive state of an incipient Christianity, 
and be content with a few simple, clear-cut truths 
that are as exact in outline as pieces of hardware, 


xX. PREFACE. 


and just as incapable of growth and expansion. 
Such a view is entirely at variance with the most 
obvious lessons of history, and the best ascertained 
principles of nature. What lives must grow; it 
can never become, so long as it lives, absolutely 
devoid of activity and motion. Now, wherever 
there are doctrines upon which the restless mind of 
man is busy; wherever doubts, questions, difficulties 
arise; wherever faith is jeopardized by the up- 
heaval of heresies that ‘‘must needs” be; the 
authority of the Church, ever wakeful and on the 
alert, must be present to guard the doctrines, to 
solve the doubts and to crush the heresy. Thus 
our vision widens, and the faith grows. If heresy 
must needs come, development of the truth is a 
happy necessity borne upon the dark wings of heresy 
itself—provided however there is an authoritative 
voice to which we can securely turn for an answer. 
Thus authority and development are essentially 
correlative. Development moves along under the 
guiding influence of a living teacher, and develop- 
ment cannot cease till either man’s mind becomes 
the shroud of faith, or faith the shroud of man’s 
mind. The truth must expand and unfold itself 
more and more fully, unless it be dead in man’s 
heart, or man be dead to it. Yet this implies no 
addition to the primitive depositum of truth. The 
least of all seeds becomes the greatest of herbs; 
but what in the plant is a natural principle of this 
evolution, is, in the Church, a divinely-given magis- 


PREFACE, xi. 


terium. Mr. Gore adopts this view, but fails in its 
application; and fails for the simple reason that 
his application is merely arbitrary and partial. The 
Church, he contends, acted with divine power at 
Niceea, Ephesus and Chalcedon, but did not act 
with the same power at the Councils of Trent and 
the Vatican! Where is the difference ? The Church, 
he replies, exceeded the limits of her power in the 
later Councils, but kept well within them in the 
earlier Councils. This has been the angry cry of 
every heretic from the beginning until now. It 
was the burden of the charge made by Arians, 
Nestorians, Monophysites, Monothelites. This 
voice of discontent will be heard murmuring 
for ever. What, then, are the sure and certain 
limits of the Church’s defining power? Mr. Gore 
answers: ‘Scripture proves, the Church teaches.” 
There can be no truth of faith that is not expéecetly 
contained in Scripture, and the sole function of the 
Church, in face of the questions addressed to her, 
is a merely negative function restricted to the bare 
elimination of interpretations that are false, and 
unable directly to posit the interpretation that is 
true. We can confidently refer to our Author's 
pages for the effectual bursting of this fanciful 
bubble. But even were the theory true, it would 
not make the Anglican claims one whit the stronger. 
It is logically impossible to admit the overpowering 
magisterium of the Church in respect of the Canon 
of Scripture, the binding authority of General 


xii. PREFACE. 


Councils, the mysteries of the Trinity and the 
Incarnation, infant baptism and baptism by heretics, 
Sunday instead of Sabbath-day observance, and 
the far-reaching conclusions arrived at in the great 
controversy on Grace and Original Sin—it is 
logically impossible to advance thus far without 
assuming the obligation of advancing farther. 
How is the definition. of the Immaculate Con- 
ception more direct and positive than the decisions 
above mentioned? In what are the texts of Scrip- 
ture in favour of the points enumerated, more 
explicit than the great Petrine texts? The Anglican 
attempt to manipulate Tradition is like Phaeton 
trying to guide the chariot of the sun. Anglicanism 
lies prone and helpless on the floor of Tradition 
because, to use St. Augustine’s simile, it did not 
come in by the door, but fell in over the wall. Of 
course Mr. Gore is at perfect liberty to draw what 
pleasing horoscope he chooses for the Establish- 
ment; yet the sun of Rome, in all its splendour, 
majesty and power, will continue to roll on serenely 
just the same. At least one thing is evident— 
Anglicans in appealing to Tradition have uttered 
a spell “which evokes, whether they will or no, 
hosts of subtle associations, rising up like spirits 
out of the past centuries.” These spirits it will be 
beyond their power to lay. 


— Swe ee ee eee f. 


- 


le it tee 


a 


PREFACE. xill. 


ITT, 


There is another matter we must, at least briefly, 
touch upon, though its importance would demand 
something more than the mere passing notice 
which we are able now to bestow—viz.: what is 
the true logical position held by Church Authority 
in the order of revealed truths? Is it the first, 
and the foundation of all? When can we first 
invoke it? Is it its own warrant? If not, upon 
what prior doctrines is it based? How are those 
prior doctrines known ?2—These, and similar, ques- 
tions immediately stare us in the face so soon as 
we enter upon an enquiry into the relations between 
faith and authority. The full bearing of such 
questions will be better understood from a short 
history, given by Rev. Principal Charies Chap- 
man, LL.D., in the January (1892) Number 
of the ‘Thinker. Mrs. Besant, then, torn with 
doubt as to what she should believe of Christ— 
whether in His true Divinity or no—secured an 
interview with Dr. Pusey. Instead of finding her 
doubts answered and her cbjections met, she was 
told: “It is not your duty to ascertain the truth. 
It is your duty to accept and believe the truth as 
laid down by the Church . . . Did not the Lord 
promise that the presence of the Spirit should be 
ever with His Church, to guide her into all truth 2” 
She answered: “ But the fact of the promise and 
its value are the very points on which I am doubt- 


XIV. PREFACE. 


ful . . . I must and will find out what is true, 
and I will not believe until J am sure.” Dr. Pusey 
rejoined: ‘‘ You have no right to make terms with 
God as to what you will believe and what you will 
not believe.” Mrs. Besant came away sad, hopeless, 
and unbelieving. Upon this narrative Dr. Chapman 
remarks: **No doubt Dr. Pusey was his true self 
in the demand made at the interview. For, strictly 
speaking, it is a superfluity for those who hold to 
the high doctrine of Church infallibility . . . to 
trouble themselves with reasoning’s to prove this or 
that Christian dogma . .. The only one con- 
sistent course 1s to prove, if possible, the right or 
power of the Church to decide . . . and then to 
demand of every one entire and instant submission. 
» « « Romanism is logical. High Anglicanism 
when dealing with doctrine is too often illogical. . . 
Dr. Pusey should have remembered that this 
doctrine of an infallible authority, over-riding all 
the thinking and judgments of individuals... 
is not itself an Article of Faith in the sense that 
the Deity of Christ is. It is a preliminary question 
to that of what is revealed concerning Christ. 
It cannot be established by assuming that the 
Church has right and power ex cathedré to settle 
it without appeal; for that is to beg the very 
question. It is to say, the infallible Church estab- 
lishes the doctrine of its infallibility—a piece of 
logical nonsense. Reasons appealing to the judg- 
ment of men alone can serve in such a case; and 


PREFACE, XV. 


thus, even though it be shown that the Church is 
as infallible as is claimed in settling dogmas, they 
and its infallibility are ultimately made to rest on 
an appeal to the reason as instructed by Scripture.” 

Dr. Chapman must pardon us for saying that he 
has been betrayed into unconscious, though none the 
less provoking, misrepresentation. A preliminary 
truth is one thing ; a dogma of faith is another thing. 
An example will explain. What would be the use, 
for instance, of speaking to one who did not believe 
in a God about the contents of a divine revelation ? 
Unless a man first holds it for truth that God 
exists, not only will he not believe the supposed 
revelation, but he must, on principle, deny even its 
possibility. Thus the doctrine of God’s existence 
is to us, here and now, a preliminary question to 
that of what has been revealed. Yet one of the 
truths contained in the Christian revelation—the 
very first Article of the Creed—is identical in terms 
with the preliminary truth on which all revelation 
depends, viz.: that of God’s existence. Is this 
revelation of God’s existence a piece of illogical 
nonsense? By no means. But what was only a 
preliminary doctrine has now put on the garb of a 
dogma. This gives us a reply to Dr. Chapman. 
So far is it from being a fact that the “ doctrine” of 
Church Authority is a ‘preliminary question” to that 
of the Deity of Christ, that the very opposite is the 
case. The dogma of Church Authority is logically 
antecedent to the dogma of the Deity of Christ ; 


xvi. PREFACE. : 


but the doctrine of the Deity of Christ is a 
truth preliminary to the dogma of Church Authority. 
The broad principle of the Catholic position is this: 
such a strong and firm assent of the mind as Is 
required in an act of true faith cannot be lawfully 
elicited until the assent itself has been antecedently 
justified on sure and solid grounds.* Without an 
antecedent and persuasive assurance of the prudence 
of belief, faith would fall from the lofty height of 
virtue into the dark abyss of blind creduiity ; and 
we should be most illogically logical were we to 
pretend that belief in the specific dogma of Church 
Authority formed any solitary exception to the rule. 
The first two volumes of Dr. Schanz’s Apology 
have dealt with the truths that a man must hold 
before he can accept with safety the Authority of 
the Church.—These preliminary truths are seven:— 
the Existence of God, the Possibility of Revelation, 
the Fact of Revelation, the History of the Old 
Testament as substantially genuine, the substantially 
Authentic Character of the New Testament, the 
Deity of Christ, the Institution of an enduring 
Apostolate. A man must be in reason satisfied 
about these points, before surrendering his mind to 
the dogma of the infallibility of the Church—unless, 
indeed, he clearly sees a way of establishing the 
Divine Authority of the Church by arguments not. 
drawn from the New Testament Scriptures. 
Catholic Theologians, then, no more claim for 


® See Vol. II. of this Apology, c. ix. ‘‘ Reason and Revelation.” 


PREFACE, XVil. 


themselves the right cf assuming the Authority of 
the Church, than Protestants may claim the right 
of assuming the inspiration and Divine Authority 
of the Bible. Though we must confess that, if any 
assumption had necessarily to be made, it would 
be far more justifiable on our part than on theirs. 
The Catholic Church now is, and long has been, a 
potent and living factor in the history of mankind. 
Something of the brightness of her divine origin 
shines like a halo round her head. Incessu patuit 
Dea. Her influence for good, her marvellous 
authority, the charm of her unity, her inflexible 
courage, her infinite adaptability, her unwavering 
self-consistency, her wonderful energy, her untiring 
patience, her strange miraculous triumphs over 
eve.y vicissitude and danger, her enduring power, 
her indestructible vitality ; the long and glorious 
list of her saints; the keen and subtle intellects 
who have obeyed her; the vast creations of her 
administration, the touching works of her benefi- 
cence, the majesty and wisdom of her ritual and 
sacramental system—all these things furnish an 
evident and striking contrast to the spectacle of 
a Bible sadly mutilated by the hands of German 
criticism, and to the discordant and warring atoms 
of broken sects. 

The same complete misunderstanding of the 
Catholic position is apparent in the other passage 
of Dr. Chapman’s criticism, in which he says: 
“even though it be shown that the Church is as 


XVill. PREFACE. 


infallible as is claimed in settling dogmas, they 
and its infallibility are ultimately made to rest on 
an appeal to the reason as instructed by Scrip- 
ture.” He should have said—as instructed by 
history. Matthew or Mark might, without being 
inspired, have written history just as true and 
reliable as that of Thucydides or Lingard. Without 
any special Divine assistance, they could have 
given us a contemporary record which, in its 
breadth and substance, was faithful to fact. This 
simply historical and merely general accuracy is all 
the “Scriptural” instruction that is required as a 
preliminary to establishing the authority of the 
Catholic Church. But when Dr. Chapman sup- 
poses, as he seems to suppose, that the infallibility 
of the Church is ultimately made to rest on reason 
as instructed by Scripture, and by Scripture under- 
stands the unquestionably inspired word of God, 
he is simply setting Catholic Theology on its head, 
with its heels in the air. Such a deep, hidden, 
and stupendous doctrine as the dogma of Divine 
inspiration can be brought home to our hearts only 
on the commanding testimony of an undoubtedly 
Divine witness. Hence the famous saying of S. 
Augustine :* “For my part, I should not believe 
the Gospel except I were moved by the authority 
of the Catholic Church.” It were, perhaps, too 
much to hope that mistakes, such as that of Dr. 
Chapman, will in future cease ; but the ‘ Apology’ 


* Reply to Manichen’s Fundamental Epistle, c. 5. n. 6. 


PREFACE. X1X. 


of Dr. Schanz will, at any rate, furnish one reason 
more for holding such mistakes less excusable. 

In this third volume we have endeavoured to 
meet the wishes of those who criticized the two 
previous volumes. The criticisms were not only 
fair, but even kind and generous. We have used 
greater freedom in the translation than heretofore. 
Moreover, we have numbered all the paragraphs— 
some—marked thus *—we have re-arranged ; 
others—marked thus + —-we have ourselves added 
as well as a large number of notes.{ We have 
great confidence that the volume will commend 
itself to the English student of Theology. We 
must again express our obligations to the Rev. J. 
McIntyre, D.D., Professor of Sacred Scripture, 
for his constant assistance. 


S. Mary’s, OscottT, BIRMINGHAM, 
Feast of S. John Baptist, June 24th, 1892. 


t As aconsequence the number of pages has increased to such an extent 
that it was found impossible to join the promised Index to this III. volume. 


CO N lees. 


CHAPTER 1. 


FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN 
REVELATION. 
PAGB 
t The Tutorship of Revelation ceasing with the Advent of Christ— 
2 Revelation completed and closed by Christ: Christian Reve- 
lation Absolute and Final—3 John the Baptist the Last of the 
Prophets: Christ the Fulfilment of all Prophecy—4 The Reason 
being His Divine Sonship—5 The Advent of the Holy Ghost 
not for the Purpose of a New Revelation, but for the complete 
Understanding of Christ’s Revelation—6 Proof from the Words 
and Practice of the Apostles—7 Proof from the Post Apostolic 
Age: the Church claimed to teach no other Doctriae but that 
delivered by the Apostles—8 Private Revelations of no account 
to the Catholic Deposit of Faith— 9 Christian Revelation, though 
materially Absolute and Perfect, does not exclude Formal Per- 
fectibility—1o Christ implanted a New Vital Principle both in 
the Individual Man, and in the Church as a Living Society: 
Development and Growth a Necessary Consequence—11 The 
Law of Progress recognised by the Apostles—12 The Apostolic 
Deposit not delivered by way of a Full and Perfect Doctrinal 
System—13 The Contents of the Divine Deposit require Un- 
folding at the Hand of a Living, Intelligent Agent, and under 
the Assistance of the Holy Ghost—14 The Rule of S. Vincent 
of Lerin: Quod Semper, etc.—15 His Analogy from Living 
. Organisms applied to the Growth and Development of Dogma: 
Development not Change—16 The Principle of Tradition, that 
is, the Combination of Conservatism with Progress, distinguishes 
the Catholic Church from All Other Communions-—17 Develop- 
ment due to Causes Internal and External—18 Heresies, 


CONTENTS, XXi. 


PAGE 
according to the Fathers, are an Occasion for Development— 
19 History confirms it—20 The Various Stages of Development 
may be traced in the Chief Doctrines on the Trinity and Incar- 
nation—2I1 Prohibition of the Council of Ephesus to add to the 
Nicene Creed—22 The Living Spirit in the Church never 
Inactive—23 Development in the Dogma of Grace, Free Will, 
Justification, Sacraments—24 Development in Cultus, Worship, 
Life of the Church—25 Difference between Catholic Church 
and Other Communions in this respect—26 Development the 
Law of every Religion—27 The Catholic Church holds the 
Golden Mean between the Fossil Conservatism of Greek and 
Protestant Churches, and the Infinite Material Perfectibility 
of Rationalism—28 Protestantism puts the Individuat Subjec- 
tive Spirit in Place of the Spirit of the Church—29 The 
Distinction between Fundamental and Non-Fundamental Truths 
a Snare and a Delusion—30 The Vatican Council on Develop- 


ment ° e ° ° @ r ° . I-39 


CHAPTER II. 
THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 


t The Messianic Kingdom predicted by the Prophets: A Kingdom 
of Peace and Jusiice—2 The Name ‘‘ Kingdom of Heaven” first 
in Daniel: Established by the ‘*Son of Man”—3 Jewish 
Hopes of a New Kingdom—4 The Kingdom of Heaven in the 
Gospel of S. Matthew—5 In the Gospels of the other Evan- 
gelists—6 Further Description by S. Matthew: The Eight 
Beatitudes—7 The Spiritual Character of the New Kirngdom—8 
Obligations and Duties in the New Kingdom on Earth—g Inter- 
nal and External Aspect of the New Kingdom: Its Visibility—10 
Conditions of Membership: Corfession of the Name of Jesus, 
Bapiism, Observance of Precepts—1I Visible Sign of Com- 
munion : Eucharist—12 The Fortunes of the New Kingdom as 
illustrated by the Parables—13 Externai and Internal Growth— 
14 Value of the Kingdom of Heaven—15 The Kingdom of God 
according to the Apostolic Epistles—r6 Both a Heavenly Gift 
and a Visible Community—i7 Christ’s Disciples the First Begin- 
ning of this New Society or Kingdom—18 Discipies in the 


PAGE 
Narrow and Wider Sense Election of the Twelve ; Their 
Gradual Understanding —19 Unity between Disciples and 
Believers—2zo The Good Shepherd—z21 Definition of the New 
Kingdom . e e e e e e 40-64 


CHAPTER III. 
THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 


1 The Word ‘‘Church,” and its Meaning in the Gospel of S. 
Matthew—2 Twice used with Reference to Hierarchy—3 
Omitted by Other Evangelists from Causes External ; Substiiu- 
tion of the Phrase, ‘* Kingdom of God ”—g Incidents in the 
Gospel of S. John having Reference to the Church, v. g. In- 
scription on the Cross; Seamless Garment ; Words of Jesus to 
His Mother standing by the Cross ; Piercing of the Side—5 The 
Church as represented in the Acts of the Apostles—6 The Church 
Universal and the Churches Particular—7 Organization of New 
Christian Communities : ecclesia Docens et Diéiscens—8 The 
Church and the Churches in the Pauline Epistles; All One 
Great Brotherhood ; the Church of God—g Rare Occurrence 
of the Word in the Epistles of James and John—ro Further 
Details on the Nature of the Church, especially from S. Paul— 
11 Metaphor of Edifice—12 Metaphor of Organism, Body—13 
Metaphor of Matrimony—14 The Church as the Continuation 
of the Incarnation, as the Intermediary Organ of applying the 
Work of Kedemption—15 Real Truths underlying all those 
Metaphors—16 Religious Life in the Apostolic Church ; Prayer 
and the Breaking of Bread in Separate Assemblies—17 The 
Lord’s Supper as the New Paschal Feast—18 Visible Guidance 
of the New Community by the Holy Spirit, communicated by 
Ordination—19 External Organization Necessary for the Con- 
tinuance of the Gospel ; Collections for the Poor in Jerusalem— 
20 Definitions of the Church: Catholic Definitions—21 Non- 
Catholic Definitions : re F + . 65-103 — 


CHAPTER IV. 
MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH. 


t The Existence of False Churches, Sects, and Heresies renders it 


CONTENTS. XXill. 


PAGE 
necessary to have Evident Signs of Recognition or Distinctive 
Marks—2 Such are Sanctity, Unity, Apostolicity, Catholicity— 

3 Indicated in Scripture, and urged by Fathers : Ignatius, 
Irenzus, Tertullian, Origen, Jerome, Augustine, Vincent of 
Lerin—4 The Same mentioned in Nicene Creed—5 The 
Vatican Council on the Subject—6 The General Aotiva 
Credibilitatis also of Use: The Notes themselves are otiva 
Credibilitatis—7 Degree of Credibility derived from Them— 
8 Distinction between Marks and Properties—g The Mutual 
Relations between the Two, and between the Several Marks 
Themselves ; ; ; : é : 104-110 


GHAPTERSV: 


THE CH URCH APOSTOLIC. 


L.— Testimony of Scripture— 

1 The Apostles are Witnesses for Christ and Representatives of 
Him, and Dispensers of His Mysteries: Their Office must 
-continue—2 They are Witnesses, internally qualified by the 
Gift of the Holy Ghost, and by the External Commission or 
Authority of Christ—3 Proof from Gospels and Acts—4 The 
Apostolate, not a mere Missionary Duty, but an Ecclesiastical 
Office and Dignity—5 Objection against the Corporate Char- 
acter of the Apostolate—6 The Apostolate, not the Resuit of 
Historical Development, but a Divine Institution—7 Apostles 
Proper, and in the Wider Sense: Barnabas—8 Conditions 
of the Apostolate—g The Manner of Exercising It, no Proof 
against It: The Apostles are Representatives of God, not of 
the Community—11 The Need of being taught by Apostles 
never ceases ; Apostles, Prophets, Teachers : the Latter Two 
not necessarily Ecclesiastical Offices—12 Continuity of Apos- 
tles in Post- Apostolic Times—13 Not merely in Their Writ- 
ings, but rather in an Organized Ministry—14 Proof from 
Acts, Epistles, especially Pastoral Epistles 


I7.—Testimony of the Fathers— 


15 Clement of Rome on the Apostolic Office—On Bishops, Pres- 
byters, and Deacons—16 Ignatius, Bishop and Martyr— 


XXIV. CONTENTS. 


PAGE 


17 Apostolic Succession of Supreme Importance with the 
Fathers: Historical Proofs of Succession given by Hegesippus 
and [renzus—18 Apostolic Succession Part of the Living 
Faith of the Church, especially Succession in the Roman 
Church—1g The Apostle’s Creed—2o0 Irenzus on the Apos- 
tolic Succession as the Organ of Truth and Rule of Faith— 
ot Tertullian on the Same—22 Cyprian—23 The Alexandrian 
Fathers : Clement—24 Origen—25 Apostolicity applied to the 
Canon of Scripture—26 Augustine—27 His Main Argument 
not weakened by Collateral Arguments from Scripture—28 The 


Schoolmen : S. Thomas 


LTI.— Testimony of Heretics. 


29 Early Heretics—3o0 Protestants—31* British and Northern Sects, 
False Idea of Apostolicity . ; EAs 3 . I1I-169 


GCHAPRTVERAVL 


THE CHURCH ONE. 


1 Love and Selfishness Causes of Union and Division: Babel and 
Confusion of Tongues—2 Religious Divisions—3 God's Care for 
Restoring Unity in the Old Testament—4 Greek Language and 
Roman Empire a remote Preparation—5 Prophecies concerning 
the One Messianic Kingdom—6 Christianity the Fulfilment of 
the Prophecies: Unity of God, of Truth, of Church—7 Unity 
of Faith, Life, Constitution, a Mark of the Church—8 Proof of 
Unity from the First Pentecost—g Baptism and Eucharist as 
Means of Union—10 The Apostleate as a Means of Union 
between Jews and Gentiles: Warning against Schism and 
Heresy—11 Unity of Faith in the Church as a Whole —12 
Baptism the Symbol of Unity—13 Not of itself, but by means 
of the Visible Church guided by the Holy Ghost—14 The 
Enemies of the Church favour Separatist Tendencies ; Julian 
the Apostate—15 The Fathers of the Church connect the Proof 
of Unity with that of Apostolicity ; Ignatius, Polycarp—16 
Hegesippus, Justine, Hermas, Cyprian—17 Heresies a Witness 
to the Unity of the Church—18 Cyprian on the Unity of the 
Church—1g the Donatists and St. Augustine—20 Greek Schism 
—Western, or Papal Schisms—22. Reformation ' . 170-197 


_ Se eee —_* 


ee 


CONTENTS. XXV 


PAGE 


‘ CHAPTER VII. 
THE CHURCH CATHOLIC. 


§ The Name not Biblical ; but Universality of the Church clearly 
predicted by the Prophets—2 The First Traces of the Word in 
the Ignatian Epistles, and in the Account of the Martyrdom of 
Polycarp : Its Meaning—3 Also in the Fragmentum Muratori— 
4 The Term applied to the Canonical Epistles—§ The Apostolic 
and Nicene Creeds—6 Patristic Explanations of the Catholicity 
ef the Church : Augustine—7 Heretics obliged to call the Church 
by that Name—8 The Argument from Catholicity as used by the 
Fathers against Heretics—g Numerical Preponderancy of the 
Catholic Church—1io Territorial Universality as compared with 
that of Sects—11 Missionary Activity of the Catholic Church: 
The Sects generally recruit from the Church—12 Protestant 
Missions: The 707 mz/a Concordieg—13 No Change in the Primi- 
tive View of the Church Catholic—14 Nothing short of a Com- 
munity will satisfy the Cravings of the Human Heart « 198-214 


COAP TE BV LIT 
THE CHURCH JNFALLIBLE, 


i* Absolute Revelation and Infallible Authority ; Are they Correla- 
tives? Thea griort Argument 4 ; A . 


6—Infallibility of the Apostles, and the Apostolic Church— 


2 Infallibility promised to the Apostles, and to the Apostolic 
Church, in Perpetuity—3 Testimony of Dollinger : Vain 
Attempts at explaining away the Promises—4 Promises how 
applied to Ali the Faithful—5 The Apostles claimed Infallie 
bility —6 Peter’s Uncertainty as to the Reception of Heathens : 
No Argument to the Contrary—7 Paul’s Rebuke of Peter 
according to Ancients and Moderns-—-8 Apostles, though Infal- 
lible, not all at once Perfect in the Knowledge of how Revealed 
Truths were to be applied —9* Difference between the Infallibility 
of the Apostles and that of the Church . ° . “ 


XXVI. CONTENTS. 


: ‘PAGE 

U.—Formal Proof for the Infallibility of the Church— 

10 Historical Proof; Irenzeus; Tertullian; Origen ; Lactantius 
—11 How the Fathers conceived it, and to whom they attributed 
it—z2 Infallibility manifested in QMEcumenical Councils—13 
Augustine on the Authority of Bishops and Councils—14 Councils 
never erred: Chalcedon and Constantinople on the Three 
Chapters—15 Councils of Constance and Lateran on the 
Superiority of Councils over the Pope—16 Councils of Ariminum 
and Seluucia—17 The Ladsocinium of Ephesus—18 Adverse 
Statements at the Time of the Western Schism: Pierre d’Ailly 
and Nicolas of Cusa; S. Antoninus of Florence—1g Middle 
Ages—20 Council of Trent—21 Infallibility and the Reformers: 
Their Own Infallibility—22 Infallibility of the Bible . ° 


11,— Material Proof— 


23 Proof from the Actual Fact—24 Millenium not to the Point 
—z25 Constitution of Church ever the same—26 Pelagianism of 
the Schoolmen a Fiction—27 Hase’s Objection against In ‘alli- 
bility: Forsaken by Scripture—28 Unsupported by Firm Tra- 
dition—29 Made to rest only on a Philosophical Basis of Sup- 
posed Necessity—30 A Brilliant Dream to suit Circumstances 


1V.—Nature and Extent of Infallibility— 


31 Assistance, not Revelation, or Inspiration; In Matters of 
Faith and Morals; In formal definitions—32* Further Ex- 
planation as to Who is Infallible, How, and When? 215-266 


CHAP DE Re LX. 
THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 


1 The Old Theocracy Exclusive and Particularistic—2 Its Tendency 
to Universality in the Future—3 The New Israel both Universal 
and Exclusive—q4 The Teaching of the N. T. as to Salvation 

- in Jesus alone—5 S. John’s Gospel lays stress on the Necessity 
of Faith, Baptism, and Eucharist—6 Testimonies of the 
Apostles on the Subject: S. John—7 S. Paul—8& S. Peter— 
9 S. James—10 Marked Opposition between the Church and 
the World foretold by Christ—11 S. Paul on Christians as 


CONTENTS. XXVIII. 


PAGE 
the Elect—12 Baptism as the Symbol and Cause of our Death 
and Life in Christ—13 What is True of Christianity, is True 
of the Church—14 Application of this Principle by the Apostles 
Themselves—The Post-Apostolic Age knows of No Christianity 
outside the Church: Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, 
Ireneus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria—16 The Sects 
not the Cause, but the Occasion for affirming That Doctrine— 
17 The Example of Noah’s Ark used by the Fathers, especially 
S. Cyprian-——18 S. Cyprian and Augustine deny True Martyr- 
dom to Heretics—19 Augustine’s View of Heretical Baptism: 
Valid, but Ineffectual, and Unprofiting outside the Church— 
20 Augustine on Invisible Members of the Church : Fulgentius 
of Ruspe—21 The Greek Fathers on the Subject—22 First 
Ecclesiastical Utterances in Africa—23 The Athanasian Creed 
—24 Boniface VIII.’s Dictum a mere Summing Up of an Old 
and General Doctrine: Tertullian, Augustine—25 Ecclesiastical 
Decision on the Subject Unnecessary. Some, however, exist: 
Lateran Council, Professio fidei required of the Waldenses, 
Council of Trent, Creed of Pius IV.—26 Modern Theologians 
on * Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus’’—27 Reformers equally 
Exclusive: Confessio, Apologia, Luther, Calvin—28 Laxer 
View adopted by later Protestants—29 Non-Catholic Theo- 
logians of Modern Days less Unjust to the Catholic Doctrine— 
30 Real Meaning of the Catholic Principle: Principle and 
Application, Augustine—31 S. Thomas—32 Modern Theo- 
logians: Pius IX., Syllabus—33* Various Kinds of Members 
of the Church—34 God’s Providence and Saving Will Universal 
—35 The Church’s Attitude towards Sinners—36 Treatment of 
Heretics in General—37 Extreme Penalty of Death: View of 
the Fathers—38 The Doctrine and Practice of the Middle Ages 
—39 The Inquisition: Protestant and other Impartial Testi- 
monies—qo Religious Toleration: Protestant Views of it—qr 
Conclusion: The Catholic Doctrine thoroughly Consistent . 267-315 


GCHAR TE Ram: 
THE CHURCH HOLY. 


t Holiness both a Property and a Mark of the True Church—2 Early 
Heretics have misapplied this Mark—3 The Sanctity of the 


+ 


XXViil. CONTENTS, 


PAGE 
Church as understood by the Fathers. First Element Her 
Doctrine—4q Second Element Her Means of Grace—5 The 
Sacramental System as explained more fully by the Schoolmen 
with Holy Eucharist as Centre—6 Congruity of Seven Sacra- 
ments according to Roman Catechism—7 Goethe on the Won- 
derful Organism of the Catholic Sacraments—8 Influence of the 
External Worship upon the Internal and Moral Life : Holiness 
+n the Moral Sense shown forth in the Members of the Church 
—g The Fathers on this Holiness—Ic Practice of the Evangel- 
ical Counsels—11 The Saints of the Past and from the Begin- 
ning belong to the Catholic Church—12 The Church on Earth 
comprises Saints and Sinners—13 Corruption of the Church in 
the 16th Century much exaggerated: The so-called Reforma- 
tion No Advance towards Holiness—14 Contempt of the Re- 
formers for Evangelical Counsels—15 True Reformation on 
the Side of the Council of Trent—16 Church’s Holiness as In- 
dependent of that of her Members—17 Bellarmine on Sanctity 
as a Note of the Church—18 Statistics of Holiness Impossible 
—1g Statistics of Crime Unreliable—2o Miracles as a Sign and 
Means of Further Holiness ; Irenzeus ; Luther—21 TheChurch 
Militant and Triumphant; Eight Beatitudes ; Roman Cate- 
chism—22 Purgatory, or, the Church Suffering~ 25} Definition 
of Holiness. : ; ‘ F , ; 316-346 


CHAPTER AL 
SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 


1 Grace and Truth Destined for All Men: How are they to reach 
the Individual? Historical Solution of the Question . : 


I.—In the Time of Christ and the Apostles— 


2 Personal Teaching of Christ—3 Christ, though familiar with 
the Written Method, left No Writings—4 Reasons Why? The 
Might of the Living Word; Example of Other Founders of 
-Religion—5 Apostles not commanded to Write, but to Preach 
and Teach: ReasonsWhy ?—6 Living Tradition,especially Nec- 
essary in Matters of Worship—7 External Reasons such as 
Fear of Profanation of the Divine Mysteries—8 Measures taken 
by the Apostles to provide for the Future: Appointment of 


CONTENTS, XX1X, 


PAG 
Pastors and Teachers—o The Apostolic Epistles merely Occa- 
sional—r1o Gospels not a Substitute for Preaching—ir But 
intended to deepen and strengthen Oral Teaching—12 Apostolic 
Preaching implies Authority and Assistance of the Holy Ghost ¢ 
Teaching by the Power of the Spirit—13 The Scripture Prin- 
ciple, therefore, Unbiblical and Unhistorical e a x 


L1,—Jn the Ante-Nicene Ase— 


14 The Principle of Faith according to the Apostolic Fathers, 
Clement of Rome, Ignatius Martyr: Truth is with the Apostolic 
Succession—1I5 The Epistle to Diognetus: Papias—r6 Poly- 
carp: The Clementines—17 Tradition the Ordinary Method of 
Faith—18 Irenzus—1g9 Tertullian—20 Testimony of the 
Church—21 Origen confesses to the Principle of Tradition with 
Scripture in Support—22* A Change of Principle Impossible . 


L1I.— Objections considered — 


23 Alleged Protest of the African Church against the Sovereignty 
of Tradition—24 Tertullian’s Objection against Custom—25 
Cyprian’s Objection against Custom in Matters of Re-Baptism— 
26 Firmilian’s Objection against the Roman Tradition — 27 
Augustine on Cyprian’s Attitude: On the Creed as an Epitome 
of Scripture Truths—28 Cyril of Jerusalem: Instruction of 
Catechumens—29 The True Scriptures are received at the 
Hands of the Church: Faith without Authority unknown to the 
Ancients—30 Reading of Scripture Unpracticable: True Pesi- 
tion of Scripture as an Instrument of Doctrine for the A/agizs- 
terium Lcclestasticum—3 i The Schools of Antioch and Alexan- 
dria : Arius—-32 No Change at Nicaea—33 Eusebius of Emesa— 
34 Augustine’s Dictum, ‘‘ Faith will totter if the Authority of 
Scripture begin to shake "—35 Suffictentia Scriplur@ « ° 


LV.—In the Post-Nicene Ave. 


36 Athanasius, Gregory ef Nyssa, Chrysostom, Theodosius—37 
Vincent of Lerin: His Canon and Commonitorium—38 
Auguctine’s Canon: Negative and Positive Element in Tradi- 
tion-—39 Tradition in Matters of Sacred Liturgy ; Basil—qo 
The Apostolic Constitutions—4q1 Lex Supplicandi est Norma 
Credenadi—42 The Schoolmen on the Principle of Faith —43 
Opposition Insignificant ; Abelard, Nominalists ° ° 


- 


XXX, CONTENTS. 


PAGE 
V.—At the Time of the Reformation and Since— 

44 Luther’s Material and Formal Principle—45 Many Contra- 
dictions involved in His System— 46 It undermines the whole 
Fabric of the Church—47 Tradition and the Council of Trent— 
48 Further Inconsistencies of the Reformers—4g Hase’s Con- 
tention that Both the Catholic and Protestant Churches have 
acted consistently with regard to Tradition—s0 Catholic Tradi- 
tion even humanly considered the Highest Guarantee Possible 
of Truth: Kepler’s Testimony—s1 The Catacombs—s2 Histo- 
rical Demonstration from Tradition at times Difficult—53 Tra- 
dition and Development go hand in hand—54* Alleged Doc- 
trines in which the Principle of Tradition is said to break down 
—55 Twofold Character of Tradition; Divine and Human 
Element—Witnesses not All of the Same Authority—56 Con- 
tents of the Catholic Faith the Same Now as in Antiquity—s7 
The Church Her own Witness to Tradition ; Vatican Council 
—58}+ R. H. Hutton on Tradition, Development, and Author- 
ity of the Church . ; 2 A ‘ . 347-416 


CHAPTER XII. 
THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 


1 A Visible Church requires a Visible Head—2 Direct Scriptural 
Evidence for Peter’s Pre-eminence: His Call according to 
Matthew and Mark—3 His Call according to Luke—4 His 
Position in the Apostolic College—s5 His Confession of Faith— ° 
6 Peter at the Transfiguration and at the Passion : Denial—7 
His Position after the Resurrection—8 Cumulative Evidence 
from all the Various Incidents—g The Special Petrine 
Texts of Scripture: Matthew xvi. 18-19—10_ Historical- 
Grammatical Interpretation decisive against all Evasions— 
11 The Patristic Interpretation of the Passage—12 Metaphor- 
ical Character No Difficulty—13 Foundation a Relative 
Term: Applied to Christ, Peter, Apostles ; Explanation of S. 
Leo, Augustine, Thomas—14 Relation of Peter to the other 
Apostles—15 Metaphor of the Keys, of Binding and Loosing— 
16 Key of Knowledge too Narrow and Interpretation—17 The 
Fathers on the Subject—18 Matthew xviii. 18, no Objection— 
19 Patristic Appeal to Matthew xvi. for Episcopal Succession in 


CONTENTS. XX XI, 


PAGE 
General—2o} The Second Great Petrine Text: Luke xxii. 31, 
32; Repetition of the Promise of Primacy—21 The Third 
Special Petrine Text: John xxi. 15-173; Fulfilment of the 
Promise ; Collation of Primacy—22 Patristic Interpretation—23 
Extension of the Text to the Church at large—24 Peter’s 
Primacy one of Real Jurisdiction—25 Juxta-Position of Peter 
and Paul in the Roman Church—26 The Zxercise of the 
Primacy in Apostolic Times—27 According to the Acts of the 
Afostles—28 According to the Pauline Lpistles—29 Dispute at 
Antioch—30 Vatican Definition . ° 8 ‘ 417-464 


CHAPTER XIII. 


THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE, 


L—Perpetuity of Peter’s Primacy— 

1* The Church being Perpetual, Peter’s Primacy must needs be Per- 
‘petual—2 The Primacy more Necessary in Post-Apostolic Times 
than in the Apostolic Age—3* Its Perpetuity not a mere Inference 
from Reason or Scripture, but @zvect/y declared in Scripture—4t 
The Primacy is the Only Means of continuing the Apostolate 
which is certainly Perpetual--5 Historical Conviction of the 
Perpetuity : Consensus Pairunt ¢ e . e ° 


di.—The Roman Successton— 


6 Who are Peter’s Successors? Answer from History: The 
Roman Bishops by Right Divine and Apostolic—7 Indirect 
Evidence from Mew Zestament as to Peter’s Roman Sojourn 3 
The Acts and Epistle to the Romans—8 First Epistle of S. Peter ; 
Babylon ; Gospel of S. John—g Tradition Unanimous as to 
Peter’s Roman Sojourn; Clement; Ignatius ; Papias— 10 
Further Testimonies: Dionysius, Irenzeus, Tertullian, Cajus— 
11 Verdict of Protestant Historians—12 Peter’s Roman Episco- 
pate of Twenty-five Years—13 Papal Catalogues and Roman 
Succession . ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 


Lll.—Evidence for the Existence and Development of Papal Primacy— 
14* Gradual Development of the Primacy—15§ Eartiest Testi- 
monies: Clement of Pome and Ignatius M.—16 Classical 
Passage of Irenzeus—17 Cyprian—18 Ambrose—19 Jerome—20 


SOULE CONTENTS. 


PAGE 
Augustine—21 General Councils—22 Testimony of Eastern 
Church—-23 Eastern Councils: Niczea, Constantinople, Eph- 
esus, Chalcedon, Antioch A.D. 340, Sardica A.D. 344—24 Afri- 
can Church in the Pelagian Controversy—25 Reasons why 
Rome elected as Seat of the Primacy ; Leothe Great ; Political 
Recognition of the Primacy—-26 Papal Titles—27 Testimony 
of Heretics : Roma semper Victrix—28 Papal Supremacy in the 
Middle Ages ; Nicholas I.—29* Pseudo-Isidore, and the False 
Decretals—30 The Schoolmen: Bonaventure, Thomas—31 
Medizval Councils ; Lateran iv., v.; Council of Florence ; 
[ Trent—32 Council of the Vatican summing up the Entire Pre- 
vious Tradition—33 Conclusion: Discourse of S. Anselm, 

Archbishop of Canterbury 4 ° : 465-503 


CHAPTER@AIN, 
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 


1* Impossible to define @ priori every single Right included in the 
Primacy ; Schulte; History must be consulted—2* The Infal- 
lible Magisterium a Chief Function of the Primacy: Conse- 
quently subject to Development like the Primacy—3t Internal 
Connexion between Magisterium and Primacy: The Power of 
Teaching an Act of Order and Jurisdiction é ° - 


L.—LEvidence of Scripture— 


4 Papal Infallibility implied in Matthew xvi. 16-19—5 Likewise 
in John xxi, 15-17—6 Directly taught in Luke xxii. 31, 32; 
Déllinger on the Text—7} Infallibility attached to the Aposto- 
late (John xiv.-xvii.); but the Apostolate survives only in 
Peter’s Successor, the Pope—8 Patristic Interpretation of Luke 
xxii., 31, 32; Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Leo, Pelagius 


II., Martin I., Agatho—g} Evidence summed up by Cardinal 
Manning . 


L1,—LEvidence of Tradition in the First Seven Centuries 


10 Necessity for carefully sifting the Evidence of Tradition ; 
Two Faults to be avoided ; Case as stated by Cardinal Manning 
in his Religio Viatoris—11 Ecclesia Romana, Meaning of the 


CONTENTS. XXX, 


PAGE 

Expression ; Ireneus, Ambrose, Jerome—12 Augustine on the 
Ecclesia Romana-—13* Testimony of the Earliest Greek Church, 
Ignatius, Clement, Ireneus ; Unique Testimony of Ireneus— 
14 The Greek Fathers: Epiphanius, Gregory Naz., Theodoret, 
Ephrem, Stephen of Dori, Abbot Maximus—15 Testimony of 
the Popes: Julius I., InnocentI., Sixtus III., Leo I., Felix II., 
Gelasius—16 Formula Hormisde testifies to Infallibility as a 
Historical Fact and as a Dogmatic Necessity ; Pope Agatho 
determines the Elements of Infallibility ; Szdzectzm, Objectum, 
Causam et Conditionem ; Bishop Hefele on Agatho’s Letter; 
Roman Synod under Agatho—17 Popes not always deciding 
Questions of Faith zz Synod—18* Councils and Synods not 
Useless on the Hypothesis that the Pope is Infallible—1o9{ There 
are not Two Infallibilities in the Church, as there is but One 
Apostolic Magisterium —2o0 History of Pope Honorius: Effect 
of His Letter upon the Catholic World at the Time ; His Con- 
demnation by the VIth General Council—21 Various Methods 
adopted by Catholic Apologists to meet the Difficulty against 
Papal Infallibility—-22 Hefele’s Solution preferred—23 Subse- 
quent Effects of the Condemnation upon East and West 


LTI.—Evidence of Tradition in the Middle Ages. 


24 Distinction between Personal and Official Infallibility ; Pos- 
sibility of a Heretical Pope—25 Official Infallibility recognized 
in the Middle Ages: Aldhelm, Theodore Studita, Ignatius, 
Patriarch of Constantinople, Nicholas I., A/neas of Paris, Peter 
Damian, Leo [X.—26* Langen’s Misrepresentation of Papal 
Infallibility—27* New Stage of Development in the XIIIth 
Century ; Doctrine of S. Thomas; Janus’ Imputation—28 S. 
Bonaventure : Duns Scotus—29* The Gallican Reaction ex- 
plained—30 The Definition of the Vatican Council . 504-552 


CELLAR AE Reak: Ve 
THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION. 


1 The Church is the Mother of True Civilization—Necessity for insist- 
ing on the Fact—2 The Influence of Religion in general recognized 
by Antiquity—3 The Old Religions incapable of regenerating the 


XXXIV. CONTENTS. 


PAGE 
World—Christianity alone able to accomplish it—4 Example of 
Jesus—His Kingdom Spiritual—5 The Apostolic Church and 
Her Example—Charity and Care of the Poor—Deacons—6 
Christianity and Slavery—Christian Relationship between Mas- 
ter and Slave—Universal Brotherhood—7 Complete Revolution 
of Ideas—Care for Sick and Poor—8 The Early Apologists :— 
M. Felix—Tertullian--Cyprian—Gregory of Naz. and Nyssa 
on the Subject—g Bishops the Fathers of the Poor and Widows 
—FEarly Attempts at Organized Charity—1o Testimony of Ju- 
lian the Apostate—11 Monasteries became New Homes for the 
Poor—12 The Church not encouraging Indolence, but enno- 
bling Labour--13 Her Influence upon the whole System of Polit- 
ical Economy—14 Gradual Abolition of Slavery—I5 Universal 
Regeneration of Society—16 Islam arresting the Work of Civiii- 
zation—17 Christianity and the Position of Woman—18 Chris- 
tianity and Civil Legislation—19 The Compact Organization of 
the Catholic Church alone could save Europe from a Return to 
Barbarism—20 Christian Virtues the Seed of True Culture—21 
Social Regeneration of Mankind used as an argument by the 
Early Apologists for the Truth of Christianity—22 Gradual Re- 
laxation of Christian Morals—23* Christianity a Source of In- 
tellectual Progress—24 Conversion of Many Philosophers—25 
Contempt of the Fathers for Philosophy explained—26 Faith 
and Philosophy join hands—Augustine, Thomas—27 Modern 
Philosophy indebted to Christianity—28 Study of Classics in 
the Church—29 Study of Nature and Natural Science encguraged 
by Bible, Fathers, Church—30 Judgment of Fathers liberal, 
though, at times, severe—31 The same Principles ever main- 
tained in the Church—32 Prohibition of the Study of Physical 
Science in the Middle Ages explained—33 Albertus Magnus and 
Roger Bacon—34 Christopher Columbus, Vasco de Gama, Co- 
pernicus, Kepler—Men of Faith as well as Science—The Works 
of Missionaries, especially Jesuits—35 The First Reformers had 
no part in this Scientific Movement of the Age—36 Giordano 
Bruno Galileo—37 Conflicts at times unavoidable—38 The 
Church and the Fine Arts—32 The Church brings into Har- 
mony all the Powers of Man—4o The Vatican Council on 
Faith and Reason—Christian Nations are still heading the 
March’of Civilization—Jesus Christ the Alpha and Omega 553-600 


CONTENTS. XXXV. 


PAGE 


APPENDIX I. 


+ The Anglican View of the Pope’s Primacy, by Dr. W. Bright . 601-608 


APPENDIX II. 


+ The Reunion of Christendom . : : : . 609-618 


CHAPTER I. 


FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF 
CHRISTIAN REVELATION, 


1. Divine Revelation, following the law of progress, came 
by slow degrees. It opened with the Protevangelium* in 
Paradise, and closed with the complete revelation of the 
Father in His only begotten Son. All revelation, from first to 
ast, had for its aim and object Him who was to come in the 
‘fulness of time” (Ephes. 1. 10; Gal. Iv. 4) to save mankind. 
Hence as the time which God in His eternal counsels had 
appointed for the redemption of mankind drew near, the rays 
of prophecy gained in brilliancy, and the image of the pro- 
mised Messias stood out more clearly and more distinctly on 
the horizon. God, in His wisdom, stooped to man’s capacity, 
and trained him to fix his weak eyes on the blazing sun of 
truth by letting in a little light at a time,—just as much as he, 
could bear, and no more. ‘Thus each streak of light prepared * 
the way for one to follow, and this again expanded and de- 
veloped the preceding. But when the day dawned, shadows 
had to flit away. As soon as the Expected One of Israel and 
the nations appeared, preparation was at an end. With the 
advent of Christ and the establishment of the Kingdom of 
God, the mere tutorship of revelat:on ceased; for Christ, the 
* First Gospel or message of future salvation. Strictly speaking this is not quite 

correct. The supernatural condition of Adam and Eve before the Fall pre- 
supposes a supernatural revelation. See Vatican Council Sess. III. C. II. 


quoted in Christian Asology Vol. II. p. 279. Tr. 
= A 


2 FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION. 


fulness of truth, was the goal of the Old Testament, and 
in the truth revealed by Him, truth attained its zenith. 
‘“T know,’’ said the woman at Jacob’s well, ‘‘ that the Mes- 
““ sias cometh, who is called Christ ; therefore when he is 
“come, he will tell us all things.’’ (John tv. 25). Julsteas 
the tutor’s office ceases, as soon as the pupil has grown 
into a full and perfect man, so, in like manner, mankind 
were sure, sooner or later, to be sufficiently educated to 
receive God’s revealed truth in its entirety. 

2. Furthermore, the universality of Christian revelation 
stamps it as the highest and fullest truth. Unlike the Old 
Testament revelation, it is not addressed to one man, 
family or people, but to all men, and all nations and peo- 
ples, of all ages and climes. It has cast aside its national 
garb, broken down the barriers of particularism, and 
opened wide its gates to all peoples and tribes. But it 
was enabled to effect this result, because it is as universal 
in its contents as in its purpose. Both in its extent and 
intensity it appeals to all men, and concerns all alike. All 
religious truth, whether natural or supernatural, is con- 
tained within its grasp, and is there blent in one with that 
highest truth which the Only-begotten, who is in the bosom 
of the Father, has brought down to earth. In the Chris- 
tian revelation both Jews and Gentiles can slake their 
thirst for sovereign truth, and satisfy their pantings for 
the fountains of living waters. By Faith Christian truth was 
to become the common property of all men of all times.’ 

3. With Christ, as both the Prophets and the Apostles have 
told us, came the fulness of time, and the world entered onits 
last stage. Only one act in the great drama remains,—the 
coming of the Judge of the living and the dead to apportion 
everlasting wealorwoetoeach man. Christ, therefore, is the 


t See Chr. Apology, vol. Il. ch. viii. Kuhn, Eznlettung in die Kathol. Dogmatick, p. 
117. Kleutgen, 7heol. der Vorzeit III. 905. From a rationalistic point of view, 
the perfectibility of revealed religion is treated by Strauss, Die Christliche 
Glaubenslehre, Tiibingen, 1840, I. 254. See on it, Hitzfelder, in Airchenlexicon, 
I, Edit. xii. 942. 


FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION. 3 


fulfilment of all prophecy. Hence John the Baptist, Christ’s 
forerunner, who, as it were, stood on the threshold of the 
New Covenant without entering therein, proclaimed aloud 
that the Kingdom of God was at hand. In him-—the last 
and greatest of the prophets—the prophetic spirit, which 
had long lain dormant, was revived, in order that a seal 
might be set to the work of the prophets. John’s office was 
to point out Him whom all the prophets had foretold. His 
watchword in the wilderness, ‘‘ Do penance, for the King- 
dom of God is at hand,”’ signalled the approach of the new 
king and the long-desired kingdom. Like an electric spark 
it fired the hearts of the faithful Israelites, and purified the 
sons of the Covenant for the coming of their God. Jesus 
Himself has set John above all the prophets, and called him 
the greatest of them that are born of women, significantly 
adding, however: ‘* Yet he that is the lesser in the King- 
‘‘dom of heaven is greater than he.’’ ‘“‘ And from the days 
‘‘of John the Baptist until now, the Kingdom of heaven 
‘‘suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away. For all 
‘‘the prophets and the Law prophesied until John ; and if 
‘you will receive it, he is Elias that is to come.’’ (Matth. 
XI. 11-14). With John’s summons to penance Christ joined 
a call to believe the Gospel: ‘‘ The time is accomplished, 
‘‘and the Kingdom of God is at hand: repent and believe 
“the Gospel.” (Mark 1. 15).\ Such, at least, is the sense 
Peter’s disciple attaches to the words in Matth. 1v.17. And 
what was this Gospel? It was good tidings for the poor 
and the wretched, for publicans and sinners ; the good tid- 
ings of redemption from sin, and death, and the devil ; the 
good tidings that a new and imperishable Kingdom was to 
be setup, with Christ, the second Adam, asits head. Thus 
not only does Christ array His teaching in opposition to that 
of the Scribes and Pharisees, but He also far outstrips the 
entire range of the Old Testament, comparing and contrast- 
ing His authority with that of Moses, and declaring that He 
has come to fulfil all the Law and the Prophets, and to 


4 FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION, 


give a new commandment of love, on the observance of which 
man’s eternal salvation will depend. Nay, he goes still further, 
and places His commandments on the same footing as the 
Father’s: “Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall 
‘“onter into the Kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the 
“will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into thie 
“Kingdom of heaven.” (Matth. vil. 21) To Him the 
Father hath given to have life in Himself, and to give life and 
salvation to mankind. (Matth. x1. 27; Luke x. 22; John v. 
26). Him the Father has constituted the all-seeing Judge of 
the world. Those whom He receives into favour shall live; 
those whom He spurns shall go into judgment. The blessed 
of His Father He will place in the Kingdom prepared from the 
foundation of the world; the accursed He will thrust into 
everlasting fire, “that all men may honour the Son, as they 
honour the Father.” (John v. 23). ‘Every one therefore 
‘that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him 
“before my Father who is in heaven. But he that shall deny 
“me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is 
“in heaven.” (Matth. x. 32, 33). 

4. To the question what is meant by confessing or denying 
Christ before men, the Gospels give no uncertain answer. 
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. In this truth 
lies, in the last instance, the supreme reason why the Christian 
revelation is absolute and final, and why Christ’s laws and 
teaching are perfect and indestructible. ‘All things are 
“delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the 
**Son, but the Father; neither doth any one know the Father, 
*but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveai 
“Him.” * (Matth. x1. 27: ‘Luke *x; 227 9] ohnyvie40 siya rs 
Vil. 28. 29; VIII 19; X. 15). He calls His Apostles blessed, 
because to them it was given to know the mysteries of the 
Kingdom of God. To His disciples, He said: ‘ Blessed are 
‘the eyes that see the things which you see. For J say to you 
“that many prophets and kings have desired to see the things 


FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION. 5 


‘that you see, and have not seen them ; and to hear the things 
“that you hear, and have not heard them.” (Luke x. 23. 24). 
As all power is given to Him in heaven and on earth, He can 
say to His Apostles: “Going, therefore, teach ye all nations. . 
“teaching them to observe all things whatsoever | have com- 
“yranded you ~: .... >'.(Matth.xxvill 19. 20); ** He that 
“believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth 
“not, shall be condemned.” (Mark xvi. 16). And again, He 
said that: “penance and remission of sins should be preached 
“in His name unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” 
(Luke xxiv. 45). Henceforth belief in Jesus Christ, the Son of 
God, is the one thing necessary. ‘ He that believeth in the Son, 
‘hath life everlasting, but he that believeth not the Son, shall 
“not see life, but the wrath of God abideth in him.” (John 11. 36). 
‘Amen, Amen I say unto you, that he who heareth my 
“word, and believeth Him who sent me, hath life everlasting, 
“and cometh not into judgment, but is passed from death to 
“life.” (John v. 24). “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh 
“my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in 
‘the last day.” (John vi. 54). ‘Christ is the resurrection and 
“the life.” .(xi. 25). ‘‘ He is the way, and the truth and the 
‘life. No one comes to the Father but by Him.” (xiv. 6). 
“Now this is eternal life; that they may know Thee, the only 
“true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.” (XVII. 3). 

s. And now a further question arises: Is the knowledge 
imparted by the Son of God to remain ever the same? or will 
it be subject to modifications and variations? Can the founda- 
tion of our faith laid by Christ be supplanted by any other 
foundation? Can it be that Christ Himself promised His 
disciples that their knowledge should grow deeper, and their 
faith wax stronger? Holy Writ supplies the answer. For He 
promised to send the Holy Ghost, who would teach them all 
things, and bring to their minds all the things He had taught 
them. (John xiv. 26). For He had still many things to teach 
‘them, but they were too weak to bear them. ‘“ But when he, . 


6 FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION. 


‘the Spirit of truth is come, he will teach youall truth. . 
‘and the things that are to come he shall shew you.”’ (XVI. 
12, 13). Any difference, therefore, that there may be be- 
tween the teaching of the Son and of the Spirit of God, 
will affect not the matter itself, but the understanding of 
the recipient. ‘‘ For He shall not speak of Himself, but 
‘what things soever He shall hear, He shall speak7-7 3. 
‘He shall glorify me, because He shall receive of mine, 
‘“and shall shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Fa- 
‘ther hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall re- 
‘ceive of mine, and shew it to you. (Xvl. 13-15.) The 
Holy Spirit is the Spirit both of Christ and of God. 
To the disciples He is the Paraclete, taking the place of 
Christ who had said : ** Behold I am with you all days, even 
‘unto the consummation of the world.’’ (Matth. xxvii. 
20.) The truth of Christ and that of the Holy Spirit are the 
same, for Christ said: ‘* Heaven and earth shall pass 
away, ‘‘but my words shall not pass away.’’ (Luke xxI1. 
33). 

6. In this way the Apostles understood their Master, in 
this spirit they conceived and exercised their office. Christ 
crucified and risen from the dead is their beginning and 
end, the subject matter of their preaching, the foundation of 
their faith, the goal of their hopes. Before the Council S. 
Peter solemnly declares: “‘ Neither is there salvation in 
“‘any other. For there is no other. name under heaven 
‘“‘ given to men, whereby we must be saved.”’ (Acts Iv. 12.) 
And S. Paul says: ‘‘ There is one God and one mediator 
‘of God and men, the man Jesus Christ : who gave Him- 
“self a redemption for all, a testimony in due times.”’ 
(1 Tim. 11. 5-6; Gal. m1. 20). The Old Covenant was tem- 
porary, and passed away with its fulfilment. The New 
Covenant, the Covenant of the spirit, not of the letter, re- 
mains. for ever. ‘‘ For if that which is done away is 
‘glorious, much more that which remaineth is in glory.” 
(m1 Cor. m1. 11.)? The Kingdom of God in Christ is ‘‘.an 


2 See also Rom. x.4; Gal. mr. 24-25. 


FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION. 7 


‘‘immovable Kingdom” (Heb. xu. 28) ; Christ’s Priesthood 
is eternal (vu. 21-28). Christ is “ Alpha and Omega, the 
‘“Grst and the last, the beginning and the end.’’ (Apoc. 
ipo), 

The Apostles received from the Holy Ghost light and 
strength to understand the Gospel, to defend it against all 
comers, and to hand it on intact and entire to others. The 
Gospel they preached was not of their own fashioning ; it 
was not the device of man, but the work of the Holy Ghost. 
And no man can set himself against the work of God with- 
out compassing his own destruction. When the Apostles 
were forbidden to preach, Peter and John simply answered 
that it was just to obey God rather than man (Acts Iv. 19). 
S, Paul emphatically declares: “‘ But though we or an 
‘angel from heaven preach a Gospel to you besides that 
‘‘ which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” 
(GaliriesS hee SEW Cr CTC approved by God that the Gos- 
‘‘ pel should be committed to us ; even so we speak, not as 
‘pleasing men, but God who proveth our hearts.”’ (1 
Thess. 1. 3). Mindful of the words our Lord had spoken 
to the Pharisees : ‘‘ Every plant which my heavenly Father 
‘hath not planted, shall be rooted up” (Matth. xv. 3), 5. 
Paul bids the Corinthians remember that the Apostles are 
only the ‘‘ ministers of him whom you have believed, and 
‘to every one as the Lord hath SiVeN. wlri ~ 3p Gocks CO- 
adjutors,’’ as the faithful were © God’s husbandry,” and 
““God’s building.’ (1 Cor. 1. 7-9 ; Iv. 1). 

In like manner, S. Paul strictly exacts from his disciples 
that they shall preach no other doctrine than that which they 
had received, that is, which Christ had revealed and the 
Apostles preached. ‘* Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and 
‘hold the traditions which you have learned, whether 
‘by word or by our Epistle.”’ (11 ehesshale tf )yene ce Leates 
peatedly exhorts Timothy® neither to preach nor to allow 
others to preach a different doctrine ; “‘ to hold the form of 
‘‘ sound words,” “* to avoid the profane novelties of words, 


3 1 Tim. 1. 3; Iv. 6; VI. 20-215 I Tim, I. 13-14. 


8 FINALILTY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION, 


“and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called”; to guard 
what had been committed to his trust, and thus to stand 
firm in the faith and love of Jesus Christ. To the Ephesians 
he says: You are “built upon the foundations of the apostles 
“aad prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner- 
“stone; in whom all the building, being formed together, 
“groweth up into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom also 
“you are built together into a habitation of God in the 
Spirit.” (phes. 1, 20-22). The faithful, therefore, must be 
educated by Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists, Pastors and 
Doctors, so as to be buiit up into one body of Christ, “until 
“we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge 
“of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure 
“of the age of the fulness of Christ, that henceforth we be- 
“no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with 
“every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by. 
“cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.” 
(Ephes, tv, 13-14). 

7. The Church of the post-apostolic age, too, held fast to 
the principle that none but Apostolic doctrine was to be. 
received as Christian, It clung to the pure and unadultera- 
ted Apostolic doctrine whole and entire, whether handed down 
by word of mouth or in writing. The rule laid down by — 
the sacred authors in regard to their writings was written in 
lines of light for future guidance: “‘ Keep what you have 
“received, without addition or diminution,” 4 When the 
Montanists proclaimed the advent of a new era, the era of the 
Spirit, to which the Gospel was to succumb, as the Law had 
already succumbed to the Gospel, the Fathers loudly protested 
against such a preposterous innovation, devised soleiy in the 
interests of heresy. Two reasons were alleged by the Montanists 
in support of their opinion: the coming of the Holy Ghost, and 
the law of natural development. ‘he descent of the Holy 


4 Barnabas xix, 11. Vincent. Lerin. Commonit. c. 32, See Deut. iv, 2 ;Apoc, xxii, 28 
seq. 


FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION, 9 


Ghost, they argued, was as much the complement of the New 
Testamenz, as the coming of God the Son was the complenient 
of the Old. This, they urged, was the meaning of the promised 
coming of the Holy Ghost. Men could not drink down all at 
once the full draught of Christian doctrine; they must inibibe 
it by degrees. All nature bends the knee to the law of gradual 
development. The plant springs up from the seed, and the 
tree g ows out of the shrub.® Strange to say, however, Lertullian, 
in his Catholic days, had trampled down the very argu- 
ments with which he now seeks to bolster up the Montanist 
view. ‘To the Gnostics, who alleged that the text “ Seek and 
ye shall find” (Matth,. vi. 7), favoured their error, Tertullian 
replies: “ But there can be no indefinite seeking for that which 
“has been taught as one only definite thing. You must ‘seek’ 
“until you ‘find, and believe when you have found ; nor have 
“you anything further to do, but to keep what you have 
“believed, provided you believe this besides, that nothing else 
‘is to be bel eved, and, therefore, nothing else is to be sought, 
after you have found and believed what has been taught by 
“him who charges you to seek no other thing than that which 
“he has taught. When, indeed, any man doubts about this, 
“ proof will be forthcoming that we have in our possession that 
“which was taught by Christ.”6 The rule of faith, according 
to Tertullian, is one and unchangeable. Christ is all in all, 
and Christianity is the absolute religion. S. Augustine also 
denounced the presumption ‘of those heretics, who supported 
their error with the plea that the Holy Spirit was to teach His 
friends many things that the disciples could not bear. 

8. Thus the Church has ever been pervaded with the firm 
conviction that no new revelation is to be expected. Individ- 
uals, indeed, may receive a reve:ation from God ; but such 
private revelations can never exercise a determining influence 


5 Tertull., De Virg.,c.1. De Resurrect., exili. 


6 Tertull., Me Prascript. c. ix. (Clark's Translation), See also Kuhn l.c. p. 335, @ 
August. /# Joann. 97, 2 Seqe 


rO FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION, 


upon the faith and morals of the universal Church. Nay, they 
are branded with the note of suspicion the moment they seem, 
even if it be but formally, to deviate from the Church’s 
doctrine and practice. The Fathers fought might and main 
against those who, dissatisfied with the received rule of faith, 
were ever hankering afier novelties and change; for a heaven- 
born religion needs to be revealed but once.? A departure 
from existing tradition is what the Apostle styles the “‘ oppo- 
sitions of knowledge falsely so called.” Gregory the Great,8 
indeed, says that the portals of eternal wisdom will open wider, 
the nearer the end of the world approaches. But his words do 
not tell against what has been said. He, like the Apostles, says 
that the world is near its end, and he views the Christian era 
as a short epoch crowning the long ages of preparation and 
education through which mankind had passed. But Christian- 
ity, to complete and crown what had gone before, must 
assuredly be the highest revelation. Gregory, however, is 
comparing Christianity with the gradual revelation in the Old 
Testament, not one epoch of Christianity with another. Nor 
is it to the purpose to argue that some Scholastics, in discuss- 
ing the difficulties about the Sacraments, contended that a 
later and special revelation had been vouchsafed to the Church 
It is true, they hazarded this as a possible hypothesis along with 
others ; but Duns Scotus quickly demonstrated its utter un- 
tenableness, by pointing out that, as all revelation affecting the 
Church at large was concluded with the Apostles, the Church 
had no power to change the essence of a Sacrament. 

This view of the matter is fully in harmony, not only with 
the nature, office and constitution of the Church, but also, 
more particularly, with the Scholastic teaching on the relations 
between Apostolic and ecclesiastical doctrine.® Progress, 


7 Prov. xxii. 28; I Tim. vi. 20. See Kleutgen, III. 908-952, 
8 Jn Ezech. II Homil. iv. x2, | § Quia quanto mundus 


ad extremitatem ducitur, tanto 
nobis aeternae scientiae aditus largius aperitur.’ 


The New Testament, of course, 
awaits a new and more perfect revelation, as S. Gregory says (ib. n. 15), but that 
is the great revelation of the beatific vision. Tr, 


9 See Schwane, Dogmengeschichte der Mittlerenzeit. F reiburg, 1882, iii. P. 498, 513. 


ss ee 


a 


FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION. II 


indeed, there must be, says Albertus Magnus; but it is rather 
the progress of the believer in faith, than of faith in the 
believer. S. Thomas states in the clearest language, that our 
faith rests on the revelation made to the Prophets and 
Apostles, not on that made to any other teachers.!0 And he 
lases his statement on the well-known dictum of S, Augustine: 
“ Only to the books of Scripture that are called canonical have 
“J Jearnt to pay such reverence as to firmly believe that none 
“of their authors has erred in anything.” In other words, 
only the inspired authors were infallible in everything. 
Bellarmine also bears witness to the Church’s doctrine on 
this head. The Church of God, he says, is no longer guided 
by new revelations, but she holds fast to that which has been 
delivered to her by the ministers of the word. Hence she 
is said to be built upon the foundation of the Apostles and 
Prophets. 

9. In saying, however, that Christian Revelation was com- 
pleted and closed with the Apostles, and that it admits of 
no objective and material additions or alterations, we are by 
no means denying a forma/ perfectibility. Christian revelation 
though absolute truth, was not given in an absolutely perfect 
form. This, considering the imperfections inherent in human 
language and man’s limited capacity, was impossible. In 
revelation, God comes down to man’s level. Christ adapted 
His discourses to the intelligence of His hearers. He expounded 
divine truth, not only in human thought and language, but 
in a particular form, viz. in parables. He saw, how slow and 
dull the disciples were to understand the mysteries of the 
Kingdom of God, and the divine plan of redemption. He 
sent the Holy Ghost to open out their understanding, and 
to give them more insight; but even so their knowledge still 
remained broken and refracted. ‘For we know in part and 


Jo S. Thom. I. q. I. a. 8 ad2; Il. Il. q. clxxii. a. 6ad 1. Albertus M. III Dist. 
a5.a.tadx. S, Aug. Ep. xix. 1 ad Hieron. 


xx De Verbo Dei, iv. 9. 


I2 FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION, 


we prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect is 
“come, that whith is in part, shall be done away . . . 
‘We see now through a glass in a dark manner, but then 
‘face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know 
“even as I am known.” (1 Cor. xi. 9-12). ‘The Apostles, 
though filled with the Divine Spirit that searcheth even the 
deep things of God, had to impart divine truth to men 
through the medium of human ideas and human language. 
No harm was thereby done to the absolute truth and matter 
of revelation, because the natural truths in the human mind, 
besides being necessarily true, are likewise indispensable as a 
foundat on on which to rear the edifice of a higher religious 
knowl dge which, since it is revealed, does not trespass on 
matters that are the object of the several branches of human 
science, but stonds unmoved amid the ever fluctuating con- 
ditions of human knowledge. All that is required as a 
foundation, is the natural light of reason, and the religious 
and moral disposition implanted in man. Thus divine revelation 
is part of the mental life of man, and as such cannot but be 
capable of formal perfectibility or development. 

ro. We have to consider, furthermore, that God the Son, in 
becoming man, breathed into humanity a new vital principle 
which was destined to work a marvellous change. Progress 
and perfection were to be the law set not for individuals alone, 
but for the whole organism whose head is Christ. Christ Him- 
self has illustrated the principle in the parable of the seed that 
grew into a tree. Perhaps it may be argued, that this parable 
has reference merely to the external growth and development 
of the Kingdom of Christ that was to spread over the whole 
world. But the same objection cannot be urged against the 
parable of the leaven. Here the whole mass as such is saturated 
and transformed. Not merely individual believers, but the 
whole body of believers, as a community, are leavened. To the 
Apostles, as witnesses of Christ’s resurrection, and as the living 
embodiment of His words and works, the divine Spirit was first 


FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION. 13 


given. Without this infallible Spirit, they could not have preached 
Christ’s doctrine pure and undefiled. And, if the Apostolic 
preaching was to be preserved intact and unadulterated, it was 
equally necessary that their successors should inherit the like 
divine gift. Now this infallible Spirit, like the spirit of man, is 
living and active, and vivifies and quickens the whole body. 
At all times it pervades the whole life of the Church. And thus 
the Church unfolds her faith as the need arises, and applies it 
under ever varying circumstances. Thus her doctrines expand 
and develop day by day. The difference between the Patristic 
and Montanist teaching did not consist in denying on the one 
hand, and affirming on the other, that the Holy Spirit abides 
in the Church and aids in its development. On the contrary, 
the Fathers lifted up their voice in protest, because the Montanists 
claimed for themselves a special Paraclete who had only just 
come; a Paraclete, who had not been abiding in the Church 
from the beginning, and who was teaching new doctrines that 
were at variance with the faith and life heretofore existing in 
the Church. 

rz, Nor were the Apostles unaware of this law of progress 
They exhort the faithful to grow in the knowledge of Christ, 
that they may all be built up into a perfect man. ‘They entreat 
them to put to good use the gifts received, that God may finish 
the work He had begun. ‘Lhat they themselves were conscious 
of advancing in the knowledge of divine truth, a glance at S. 
Paul’s Epistles will abundantly prove. In all his Epistles, the 
truths set forth are substantially the same. Yet how vastly the 
Epistles written during his captivity differ in character and tone 
from the earlier ones, especially those addressed to the Romans 
ancl Galatians! Again, the so-called pastoral Epistles exhibit 
the practical side oi their author. Some writers exaggerate these 
differences with a view to challenging S. Paul’s authorship, while 
others, with the contrary purpose, have pared away both sides 
and left nothing in the middle. Both processes are needless, 


x2. Ephes. iv. 53; Coloss. i. r0; 11 Peter, ili. 18. 


- 


14 FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION, 


for the differences, though real, are only formal, not mate- 
rial. Then again, S. John’s Gospel, in comparison with 
the Synoptists and S. Paul, also reveals progress. Each of 
the Catholic Epistles, too, has its own peculiarities. Here 
we need only remind the reader of the idea of Christian 
hope as set forth in S. Peter’s first Epistle, and of the re- 
lation in which S. James’ Epistle stands to Romans. Lat- 
terly a great deal has been said, in an exaggerated strain, 
of the peculiar doctrinal concepts of the New Testament 
writers. Still there isno denying that in the manner of con- 
ceiving, propounding and applying the fundamental truths 
of Christianity, a clear stream of progress is discernible. 
The Apostles, assuredly, were not automatic witnesses of 
our Lord’s sayings and doings. They were not merely 
passive organs of the Holy Ghost, but they had an intel- 
lectual grasp of revealed truth. The Holy Ghost while 
guiding them to acquire a deeper knowledge of the divine 
dispensation, and to impart that knowledge to the faith- 
ful, was thereby confirming and strengthening their 
faith. | 

12. The post-apostolic age entered upon the full inher- 
itance of Christian revelation, both written and oral, that 
the Apostles had preached and taught. But the Apostolic 
teaching was not a systematised body of doctrine, nor yet a 
mere conglomerate of words and deeds without internal con- 
nexion, which the human mind was left to understand and 
explain, as best it might, with its own lights. True, the 
revelation bequeathed to the Church by the Apostles was 
conceived in the common forms of the human mind, and 
expressed in the language and according to the needs of the 
times ; but from this it does not follow that these forms 
were to be exposed to the changes and ever shifting influ- 
ences that girdle human science. We must beware of two 
excesses : either of supposing that the Church became 
conscious only by slow degrees of the contents of reve- 
lation, or that she had been fully conscious of all its dog- 
mas from the beginning. For the first view would fail 
to do justice both to the contents of the New Testament 


~ 


OO ey ee see ee 


FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION. 15 


writings, and to the faith and life of the ancient Church ; 
while the latter would shut out from sight the historical 
development of such dogmas as the Trinity and Unity of 
God, the Incarnation and Person of Christ, and the salva- 
tion of mankind by God’s grace. 

Now such historical development is inconceivable except 
under two conditions : first, that the various aspects of the 
dogma, subsequently set out in clear light, were already 
contained, somehow or other, in revelation and in the pre- 
vious teaching of the Church ; and second, that the Church 
had not from the outset a clear and full view of all these 
different aspects, and of all the different bearings of the 
dogma. We must not suppose that development was 
wholly brought about by wicked heretics. Nor again can 
we account for it by supposing that certain truths had been 
blotted out from the memory of latet generations. Such 
a supposition-is as unreasonable as it is incompatible with 
the principle of Tradition on which the whole fabric of 
faith rests. On the contrary, development is and must be 
due to causes that are at work within the Church. Igno- 
rance and doubt may at times cloud the minds of the faith- 
ful and good, because new questions concerning faith may 
arise, as time goes on. And were not heretics, too, some- 
times in a position to prop up their heresy by singling out 
passages from Scripture or the Fathers? Not all things 
in Scripture and Tradition are written in lines of light. 
Melchior Canus mentions the procession of the Holy Ghost 
from the Father and the Son, the Beatific Vision, the Im- 
maculate Conception, the Sacraments, and the doctrine of 
the nature and privileges of the Church as problems, the 
solution of which is not unmistakably clear from Scripture 
or Tradition. 

13. Holy Scripture is adapted, ina wonderful manner, to 
give a permanent form to the contents of revelation. Itslan- 
guage and manner of thought, itis true, are borrowed froma 
particular people, the Semitic and Hellenistic Jews ; but 
these are an accidental and transient factor which leaves the 


16 FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION, 


thoughts and substance untouched ; and they are consequently 
matters of less importance, and lie, as it were, on the 
confines of faith and science. But, for this very reason, the 
Church, when defining doctrines of faith, has ever been 
reluciant to deviate from the letter of Holy Scripture. In 
questions about God and divine things, the Fathers often 
remark that. we must believe nothing but what is in the Scrip- 
tures. “For, concerning the divine and sacred mysteries,” 
says 5S. Cyril of Jerusalem, “nothing whatever is to be set 
“forth without the sacred Scriptures, nor may we yield to 
“clever persuasion or artful words. For the power of faith 
“that worketh salvation comes not from proofs from reason, 
““howsoever cleverly put, but from proofs from Holy Scripture.” 
From Pseudo-Dionysius, too, the well-head of Scholasticism, 
the saying has passed current among the Scholastics, that no 
one may say or think concerning the Godhead aught but 
what God Himself has revealed in the sacred Books. Before 
him S. Basil had said. ‘‘ Believe what is written, and be not 
“inquisitive about things unwritten.” And the reason for 
this extreme caution is given by S. Augustine: “In disputing 
“about matters so thickly obscure, human reascn must hold 
“back when the proofs from Scripture are not clear and 
“certain.” 18 

Nevertheless, these and such like passages from the Fathers 
refer directly to the mysteries, and hence they cannot be 
applied generally to the whole cycle of the doctrines of faith. 
They were designed to warn off human ingenuity from tamper- 
ing with the revealed mysteries, not to stunt these and other 
doctrines of the faith in their legitimate growth, which takes 
place under the authority of the Church and with the assistance 
of the Holy Ghost. Nay, when change of circumstances gave 
rise to concrete questions about faith and morals, such de elop- 
ment grew into a necessity. When the Christian faith was 


13 See Petavius, Prolegomenai.7. M. Canus, Loci Theol. iii. x. Roesler, Der 
Kathol. Dichter A. Prudentius Clemens, Freiburg, 1886, p- 318. 


FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION, 17 


first preached, the several Christian communities had but few 
wants. Coniroversies, such as they were, hinged upon the 
question whether Christianity were preferable to Judaism and 
Heathenism. The Chi ‘ian religion found its immediate 
expression, not in the theorizings and intellectual speculations 
of the learned, but in the virtue and life of the Church. But 
as time went on, Christianity came in closer contact with 
heathenism, and proportionately its opposition to worldly wis- 
dom waxed louder and stronger. Then the several tenets 
of faith had to be strengthened against ali incursions of doubt 
from within and from without. Misconceptions and misrepre- 
sentations had to be guarded against. And thus the continuous 
progressive movement imparted to the Church’s faith and 
worship is really due to the combined action of two forces: 
the attacks of heretics, and that tendency towards development 
which is inherent in all living faith. 

To the objection that Chiistianity was an unnecessary inno- 
vation, the Apologists, as we have seen in an earlier voluine, 
made a twofold reply. In the first place, they claimed for 
Christianity a greater antiquity than idvlatry and philosophy, 
because the preparation for Christianity began in the Old 
Testament, and the natural knowledge of God was an indis- 
pensable condition of revelation. In the second place, they 
urged that progress is an innate law in all things human, 
relig ous life included. To stand still in religion, is to go back. 
If religion is permeated by a living spirit, if the God-man 
dwells in His Church, then, however final and absolute 
Christianity be as a religion, its doctrines must be instinct with 
life and movement, progress and development. But conserva- 
tism must go hand in hand with progress. 

14. In discussing this question, it is usual to refer to the 
celebrated Commonitorium of S. Vincent of Lerins, and to 
follow up his line of argument. S. Vincent emphasizes both 
conservatism and progress, and shews that the two are mutuaily 
and internally connected. And firstly, he lays it down as 

B 


18 FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION. 


absolutely certain, that all revealed truth is to be traced back 
in an unbioken line to the Apostles. “ Quod semper, quod 
ubigue, et ab omnibus,” is his rule. In a word, only that is to 
be held as an article of faith which all men, in all parts of the 
world, have at all times believed. It is not our present purpose 
to explain this famous saying in detail; we merely quote it as 
pointing the dagger at innovations in faith. S. Vincent then 
goes on to ask: Is progress, which is present in all things else, 
absent from religion? Is religion the only exception to the 
law of progress? In the Catholic Church, he answers, the 
progress of religion is very great. Is there any man, he asks 
so mean and hateful in God’s sight, as to dare to block it? 
But, be it noted, he insists that it be really and truly progress, 
and not change. By progress things are unfolded and expand; 
whereas change turns one thing into something else quite 
different. Hence the Church and all its members must ever 
be growing in knowledge and wisdom and understanding, 
according to times and circumstances. But they must grow 
in the same doctrines, in the same meaning and sense, so that 
while the manner is new, the thing itself is unchanged (ove, 
non nova)\4 

15. S. Vincent illustrates his meaning by an analogy from 
the growth of organisms. Spiritual development is governed 
by the same laws as organic development. As years roll by, 
the human body grows and develops, but it is ever essentially 
one and the same. ‘The youth differs from the man, but 
whether young or old he is the same man. So, in like manner, 
the tree is other than the shrub, and the shrub is not the 
seed, yet both tree and shrub have grewn out of the seed. 
From these comparisons it is clear that S, Vincent was not 
debarred by the absolute, final and unchangeable character of 
~ revelation ‘rom holding that religious growth and development 
are the law both in individuals and the Church at large. And 
he does not merely mean, that they grow in the knowledge that 


14 Commonitorium c. 28. 


FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION. 19 


springs from faith, or that the dogmas of faith become more 
fully understood, ‘but that there is real progress in religion 
itself. In a word, he means that the Church’s doctrinal 
teaching, not merely its theology, or science of faith, is pro- 
gressive. Dogmas fixed and formulated in later times were not 
taught clearly and explicitly in the early ages, but only 
implicity and obscurely, and in general terms. Were it other- 
wise, the Church’s teaching could neither progress nor develop. 

Scientific theology and ecclesiastical teaching, far from being 
in opposition, are mutually correlated, as we may see from the 
influence wielded in the Western Church by S. Augustine and 
S. Thomas. Still they are not identical. We must beware of 
supposing that the teaching Church ( Ecclesia Docens} is a blind 
tool in the hands of theology for raising to the rank of a dogma 
the one theological opinion, from among the many, that seems 
at the time to be most in harmony with revelation. On the 
contrary, she consistently follows her own course of develop: 
ment, and thus arrives at the decision that is, for the time 
being, best calculated to grapple with error and misunder- 
standings, and to give instruction and edification to the faithful. 
As theology is the pioneer of ecclesiastical teaching, so it, in 
turn, is piloted by the authoritative teaching of the Church. The 
various dogmatic decisions issued by the Church upon one 
and the same point of faith, while encircling the truth with 
light, and giving a spurt to theology, have ever kept pace with 
the progress of human science. In her decisions the Church 
has scrupulously adhered, as far as may be, to the words and 
phrases of Scripture ; but this only proves that she avoids new 
terms, lest she should incur the slightest suspicion of innovation. 
The very necessity of new definitions also shows the extreme 
difficulty of giving, at all times, adequate positive expression to 
the faith of the Church. Were these definitions framed for no 
other purpose than to determine more precisely the true sense 
of God’s word, they would be readering no mean Service. 


zs Kleutgen iii. 968. 


20 FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION, ~ 


The comparison of the Church with a living organism is as 
old as the Church herself. S. Paul, as we have seen, insists on 
it repeatedly and at length. The Church, he says, grows and 
expands, both within and without, yet never becomes a different 
body. Its life, grace and energy flow from Jesus Christ, its 
head ; while all its truth and strength are derived from the 
Divine Spirit animating it. But a Church, with Christ and the 
Divine Spirit as head and soul, must needs grow, both in 
extent and intensity, in intellectual and moral life. llow 
could she otherwise repel hostile encroachments from without, ~ 
and beat down human frailty within? Thust he struggle for 
self-preservation, and the fight to keep all that she has received, 
becomes to the Church a means of continuous progress in 
faith and sanctity. 

16. It is this unique combination of conservatism with 
progress, this double action in at once keeping intact and yet 
ever developing the faith committed to her, that distinguishes 
the Catholic Church from all other communions. In this she 
differs from the rationalistic school, which simply looks upon 
the Apostolic deposit as a form of cognition moulded to suit 
the early ages; from those Christian communities (e.g., the 
Greek) which conceive tradition as a stagnant pool; and again 
from Protestants, who wish to go back to the initial stage of 
the first centuries, and, as it were, to force the whole stream of 
social and moral development back to its source. Even Strauss 
ridicules this absurdity: ‘“‘To stand still and adhere slavishly 
“to what is written in matters of faith and morals, as some 
“teachers, mostly of the school of Antioch, have recommended, 
“‘is merely to bury the talent that should be put out at interest. 
“By its very nature the human mind cannot but seek to know 
“more precisely what is only indefinitely contained in Scrip- 
“ture, and also to transform (!) and adapt what is no longer 
“suitable to chanzed times and circumstances. Of course the 
“Church was only conscious of the former operation,’ 


xr Glaubenslehvel. 108, See Kuhn, Ainlertung p. 130. 


FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION. 28 


-Rationalists assume that Christianity is capable of infinite 
material perfectibility, while the orthodox Protestant theory, 
with its irrational supernaturalism, denies all development. 
Under other conditions, both would be right; the latter, were 
there no living Spirit at work in the Church; the former, if 
supernatural revelation were not final, and if it were without an 
infallible interpreter. But since these suppositions are false, 
the two theories built upon them are also false. Supernatural 
revelation, though absolute and final, may be given in a finite 
form, and enly the Spirit that gave it, can infallibly expound it 
and make it fruitful for all ages and climes.* 

17. Hence progress and development are a necessity in 
the Church, and they are due, as we have said, to two causes: 
heresies from without, and a desire to understand the faith 
from within. Were the latter wanting, the former would force 
the Church to develop. Heresies are often regarded as mere 
abortions or monsters, the products of giddy minds or depraved 
wills, as, indeed, they sometimes are; but they were not always 
so, especially in the first centuries. At times they derived 
partial support from doctrines and institutions previously in 
existence; and the enor lay in giving too much prominence 
to one side of the dogma, and unduly disregarding the other. vt 
Once the ball of contradiction was set rolling, it was sure 
to give a start to many aberrations 

18. While lashing heresies with all their might, the Fathers 
recognized their negative worth as indirect aids in shedding 
light on revealed truth. In this sense, from Tertullian onwards, 
they were wont to explain I Cor. x1. 19: “There must needs 
‘be heresies.” Heresies prompt deeper enquiry into Christian 
truths, and cause them to be more fully explained. Heresy, 
remarks Tertullian, may be a bugle-call to the Doctors of 


17 Hagemann, Die Rémische Kirche, Freiburg, 1864, p. 21. 


* It is interesting to see how the greatest witness to the Catholic faith in the roth 
century, the late Cardinal Newman, long before he became a Catholic, had fully 
realized the truth that development was a necessary mark of the true Church, and 
that development, to be sure and safe, demanded, as a collateral factor, a divine 
and authoritative exponent of the faith, Tr. 


22 FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT ©F CHRISTIAN REVELATION. 


the Church, summoning them to develop a doctrine anew, 
or it may be a chastisement on them for neglecting the duty 
of development. To Origen heresy seems the necessary 
resultant of the contact of two forces: divine truth with the 
human mind. ‘‘When the working and serving classes, and 
“men of culture in Greece, began to perceive something - 
“venerable in Christianity, heresies became inevitable, both 
‘by reason of the lust of dispute and contradiction, and of the 
“desire of the learned to penetrate deeper into the Christian 
“mysteries.” 5S. Augustine also says that heresies, by forcing 
upon the Church particular questions, have thereby caused 
the Sacred Scriptures to be studied more diligently than they 
would otherwise have been. From personal experience he 
learnt that understanding of the faith may be sharpened, 
deepened, and perfected by opposition. He confesses that 
Pelagianism, besides forcing him to study God’s word more 
attentively, made him a defender of grace. Had not Semi- 
pelagianism arisen, he says, the question, how faith begins, 
would perhaps have never occurred to him, or he might have 
thought wrongly concerning it. The heresy, however, helped 
to open his eyes, and was the occasion of his writing his 
retractations. But he begs his opponents, when judging his 
doctrine, or that of the early Fathers on grace, to bear in 
mind the doctrine he is combating, in the face of which he 
is striving to defend some Christian truth. 18 

19. ‘The history of the Church, from the very beginning, 
also bears witness that heresy has been indirectly instrumental 
in unfolding Catholic doctrine. The judaizing school in Galatia 
prompted S. Paul to show that the New Testament was 
superior to the Old, and to explain more exactly the necessity 
and power of faith working through charity. By the disputes 
and schisms that were rife in Corinth, he was led to draw out 
18 Tertull. De Praescript, c. 39. Orig. C. Cels, iii. 12, Aug. De Civ. Def, xvi. 2, te 


Enarr. in Ps. 55, 22; Epist. 143, 2. De dono fervsev. xxi. 55. Relract. Prol. n. % 
Cf. Petav. De Poen. ii. 7,2. Kleutgen, iii, 883, 955. Kuhn, Zis/eit. p. 166. 


FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION. 23 


in detail the relation subsisting between the charismata and 
the one God and one Lord. The dangers lurking in Rome 
and other churches induced him to proclaim aloud his Gos- 
pel and Apostolic office. So, again, the errors of the 
Gnostics and Manichzans made it incumbent on defenders 
of the faith to adjust the bearings between redemption and 
creation, and to state in what relation God stands to the 
world and to evil.” The Gnostics, according to some mod- 
ern writers, were the first dogmatic theologians and bibli- 
cal scholars. To them we owe, they say, the first attempt 
to reduce the faith to system, and to fix the canon.” Ec- 
clesiastical decisions, indeed, are often slow and late in 
coming; but this is the natural and inevitable course of 
Catholic development. The struggle surging within the 
Church, on the rise of heresy, is preparing the way for 
them. Thus, on the dispute concerning the validity of 
heretical baptism S. Augustine remarks: ‘‘ How could a 
‘‘ subject, so wrapped up in the mists of controversy, have 
‘‘ been encircled with a halo of light by a plenary council, 
‘unless bishops in different parts of the world have previ- 
‘‘ ously met in consultation and worked the problem out ?””” 
It may be frankly conceded that at times individual apolo- 
gists, while assuming the common truth to be self-evident, 
confronted error with its extreme, thus, as it were, taking 
pattern by the gardener who tries to make a stormblown 
tree straight by bending it in the opposite direction. To 
defend what all admitted and none denied were to waste 
both time and labour. But the Church herself has ever 
avoided extremes in her decisions, as we may see from her 
attitude towards the doctrine of grace as advocated by S. 
Augustine.” 

20. This development, the causes of which we have assigned 
in the preceding pages, is still traceable, at least in the chief 


19 Moehler, Sysbolick, p. 371. Hagemann, p. ig. 

zo Kuhn, p. 332. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 188. 
21 De Bapt., 11. 12 seq. Kleutgen, III. 976 seq. 

22. See Kuhn, Zinxdettung, p. 161 seq, 


24 FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION, 


doctrines of faith, and in the life of the Chu-ch. Asa rule, 
we can indicate the main stages through which it has passed. 
Broadly speaking, they correspond or coincide with the very 
points that the Church’s decisions have subsequenily made clear, 
as may be seen by a glance at the Apostles’ Creed, the Creeds 
of Nicsea and Chalcedon, and the so-called Athanasian (Anas- 
tasian?) Creed. In them we sce, as in a mirror, the course 
that development has run in regard to two main dogmas, the 
Theological and the Christological, as they are called, which are 
both unmistakably contained in Holy Scripture. The Theo- 
logical dogma, or that concerned with the mystery of the 
Blessed Trinity, while supposing that the Godhead is absolutely 
one, teaches that the Sen ard ely Ghost, and not the Father 
alone, are each truly God. The attack on these truths 
proceeded from the various sections of what is known as the 
Monarchist heresy.* Hence the Church was summoned to do 
battle and to buckle on her armour in defence of the whole 
truth. She was obliged not only to emphasize the distinction 
between Father and Son, but also to state in what re'ation the 
divine persons stand to the divine nature and to one another. 
Against the Sabellian Modalists she defended the real Trinity 
of persons; against the Arians she declared that the Son is 
consuhstantial with the Father; against the Pneumatomachi 
she taught that the Holy Ghost is God equally with the Father 
and Son. Moreover, she taught that the distinction of persons 
rests on the acts of generation and procession. Nothing now 
remained but to define more exactly the relation between the 
Son and the Holy Ghost, and this was accomplished by the 
declaration that the Holy Ghost proceeds from both Father 
and Son (ad utrogue). Thus the Western Church, in conflict 
indeed with the Greek Church, but in perfect harmony with 
Holy Scripture, gave the finishing stroke to the dogmatic 
development of this fundamental truth. 

* Socalled, because of their motto: “We believe ina Monarchy,” f.e. {n one nature and 


One person. In their view the Son and Holy Ghost were either mere names for 
the same person (Modalists), or they were inferior in rank and being (Arians). Tr. 


FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION, 25 


The process in regard to the Christological dogma was very 
similar. The struggle raged with equal fierceness, wher 
Ebionites and Docetists* sounded the clarion of war, the one 
_leading the attack on the divinity, the otner on the rea] 
humanity of Christ. Difficult as the task of reconciling the two 
may have seemed, it was the Church’s bounden duty to defend 
the two natures, perfect and entire, in the one Christ. Nor did 
the struggle end there. It lasted for centuries. Arianism, of 
‘which we have already spoken, pitted the divine unity against a 
real Trinity. This was its cardinal error. Then by holding 
that Christ was verily a distinct person from the Father, but 
had not the same divine nature, it denied two perfect natures 
in Christ. Next Apollinaris reinforced the Arian attack by 
depriving the human nature of a human soul, the piace of 
which he supplied with the Adyos. And now development 
entered on a further stage. Belief in Christ’s two natures 
opened out a new vista of q:iestions; to wit the union of the 
natures. Nestorius taught that the two were united imorally 
and externally only, thus implying a twofold person. Eutyches 
and the Monophysites, on the contrary, tavght that the two 
natures were blent in one confusion, one being completely 
absorbed in the other. This long struggle issued in the 
definition that in the one person of the Logos are two natures, 
entire and perfect, distinct and not confused (wa persona in 
duabus naturis). Yet again the cry to arms resounded through- 
cut Christendom, when some sought to tone down the definition 
by contending that Christ had only one will and one energy. 
These last combatants were the Monothelites,t who were 
driven from the field by the Sixth General Council. Thus 
heresies were the means of developing the Catholic Christology. 
To some it will seem surprising that these fundamental dogmas, 
So clearly and explicitly set forth in the faith of the Church, in 


* Docetists (Soxéwv to seem), so called because they taught that Christ had only 
seemingly not really a human body. Tr. 


P / , 
t Monothelites (pL0vov OeAnpa), so called because they taught that Christ had only 
one wiii, the divine, and no human will. Tr, | 


26 FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION. 


Holy Writ and Tradition, should have become the object of 
controversies that stirred the Eastern world to its depths, and 
should have been fully developed only after long and bitter 
struggles. But if we look beneath the surface, we shall see that 
these struggles were deadly duels between faith and philosophy, 
between divine wisdom and humar: reason, between true and 
false development. Heretics sought to confine faith within the 


prison bars of reason, while the Church tried to accommodate 
reason to faith, and to widen the categories of reason with the 
help of revelation. Hence, in her definitions, the Church could 
appeal to both Scripture and Tradition, whereas heretics had to 
readjust their instiuments of proof. So at least Tertullian 
seems to say: “There, then, must the corruption both of the 
“ Scriptures and the expositions thereof be regarded as existing, 
“where diversity of doctrine is found. On those, whose 
“ purpose it was to teach differently, lay the necessity of 
« differently arranging the instruments of doctrine,” (i.e. the 
Scriptures, especially of the N.T.). And again, the author of 
the “Little Labyrinth’ (Hippolytus ?) refers the Artemonites 
to the writings of the Apostolic I’athers and Apologists, that is 
to Tradition, in order to show that Christ was worshipped as 
God. . 

21. And here it may seem that, on the whole, or at all 
events in particular doctrines, the process of dogmatic develop- 
ment has reached its final stage and come to a standstill. This 
is the view taken by Protestants who allow the oldest creeds 
to be an accurate expression of the doctrines of Scripture, 
but set their face against all further development in Christian 
doctrine. The Council of Ephesus, by commanding under 
pain of anathema that no creed but that of Niczea** should 
be used, seems to lend support to this view. But how 
a3 Tertullian, De Prescrift. c. 37, 38; (Clark’s Translition). On the Labyrinth see 

Euseb., Hist, Eccl. v. 28. Dillinger, Hif/olyius und Callistus. Regensburg, 
1853, p. 3 seq. Kuhn Die Christliche Lehie von der géttlichen Dreieinigkett. 


Tiibingen, 1857, p 306. 
e4 Mansi, iv, p. 1338. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, and edit. ii, 207. 


FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION. 27 


slender ind fragile a prop this is to lean upon, is seen from 
the fact that the Council of Chalcedon, after approving the 
Nicene symbol, together with Cyril’s explanations given at 
Ephesus, proceeded forthwith to expand the teaching con- 
cerning the union of the two natures in the one person, 
Hence S. Thomas says, that the prohibition “was aimed at 
“private persons, who have no business to fix the faith; but 
“it was not meant to prevent a subsequent synod from issuing 
“a new edition of the creed that should throw mor= light 
“on one and the same faith. And so each synod, owing to 
“the exigencies of heresy, has been a step in advance of its 
“predecessor.”*5 An example of this apparently inconsistent 
action on the part of the Church is furnished by the history 
of the Fiviogue. These words were first inserted in a creed 
at Toledo (447), but’ only found their way into the symbol 
of Niczea and Constantinople in 589. Nevertheless the Roman 
Church, however convineed that the words adequately expressed 
the true faith, was unwilling to act against even the letter 
of the prohibition, and consequently refused to ratify the 
addition for several centuries. And when at length it was 
inserted, the Greeks reproached Rome with falsifying the 
Creed! Rome has retained in her liturgy the Apostles’ 
Creed together with the Creed of Nicxa and Constantinople ; 
and yet the Greeks, who have completely lost the Apostles’ 
Creed, accuse Rome of tampering with the symbol of faith! 
Is not this surpassing strange? Surely they forget that the 
definitions of Councils need explanation and development as 
much as the doctrines of Scripture. 

22. How is it possible for the living spirit in the Church 
ever to become inactive? The life of faith in the Church 
can never sink down to a “dead level of monotony.” To 
say nothing of the spread of Christianity among the nations, 
which ever makes fresh demands on the Church’s teaching office 
and work, the very progress of general education, the springing 


#5 S. Thom. II. II, Qu. I. a. 10. ad 2. 


4 


28 FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION. 


up of new heresies, or the reappearance of old heresies under 
new forms, compel theologians to study the dogmas more 
deeply, and the Church to define them more clearly. Dogmatic 
truth is divine and consequently inexhaustible. Reason, on 
the other hand, being a living force, is by nature ceaseless 
in its activity. And hence the same eternal and unchangeable 
truths both can and must develop. 

23. An instance in point is the dogma of redemption. 
Holy Vrit states emphatically that we are saved by the grace 
of Christ. In what relation, however, does grace stand to 
good works? What bearing have good works on just:ying 
faith? What connection has grace with the Sacraments? In 
answer to these questions Holy Scripture supplies certain 
data, but it does not answer them clearly and direétly.% At 
the outset there was no complete systematic treatise on Grace 
or the Sacraments. The Greek Fathers, trained in Greek 
wisdom, after the manner of their masters in philosophy, 
were wont to speak of virtue firstly and chiefly as the work 
of man. Gnostic and Manichzan Dualism made it still more 
imperative on theologians to urge that man is free to determine 
the course that his actions shall take. Hence their writings 
are coloured by phrases that tone down the necessity of grace 
as a principle preceding all man’s endeavours to attain 
salvation. But when the Pelagians set liberty on a higher 
pinnacle than grace, and proclaimed that the Christian religion 
was not a positive means given to man to atiain a supernatural 
end, but only a moral means of attaining his natural end 
more easily, S. Augustine who, when arguing against the 
Manicheans, had placed human liberty in the van, was 
compelled to thrust it into the rear in order to give prominence 
to the absolute necessity of divine grace. He saw clearly 
that the very first beginning of faith, that is the sinner’s 
first wish to believe, must be ascribed to grace and not, as 
the Semipelagians held, to the effort made by the sick man 
in desiring to obtain help from a physician. Thus Augustine 


FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVEDATION. 2G 


threw a mantle of light over the whole question of grace, and 
cleared the ground for the Chureh’s decrees against the 
Pelagians and Semipelagians, _ Nor was this all. ‘That 
controversy failed to settle all questions, for even now there 
ere many awaiting solution, L[vyen the keenest and brightest 
intellects stand perplexed in presence of the problem raised 
by the manner in which grace acts through free-will. These 
the Apostolic See has left undecided, and for the present 
abandoned to the turmoil of theological discussion, Again, 
the controversy on heretical baptism, by eliciting that the 
effect did not depend on the character of the minister, partially 
solved the question of sanctifying grace as conferred by the 
Sacraments. . Nevertheless the same controversy broke out 
afresh in one form or another in the Middle Ages, and finally, 
in the XVI century, the whole question of grace was reopened 
by the Reformers who, in opposition to all existing teaching, 
propounded a brand new doctrine on justification and the 
Sacraments, which obliged the-Church to give fall and explicit 
expression to her teaching in the Council of Trent. 

Closely Inked with the Sacraments is the doctrine concern: 
ing the Church, ‘The Reformers, by placing each individual 
in direct relationship to Christ by faith, and by promising 
salvation without the Church’s intervention, denied authority 
to the Church as a visible Divine institution, and thereby cut 
the ground from under her as a means and condition of 
Salvation. In effect they decried the Church set up by Christ 
as the Kingdom of Antichrist. And as that great revolt still 
endures and, leagued with the spirit and errors of Rationalism, 
is still battering at the faith and authority of the Church, the 
Chuich, as in duty bound, has in the Vatican Council given 
a further development to her doctrines on the nature and 
authority of the Church. ; 

23. The Cultus and Liturgy of the Church furnish yet 
another instance of doctrinal development, not indeed directly, 
but only indirectly, because of their connection with the 


3° FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION. 


doctrines they symbolize. Nevertheless, as is easily understood, 
development in this sphere is naturally greater and more 
notable than in the domain of faith and doctrine, because, 
besides being the worship of God, Liturgy is intended to raise 
man up to God, by bringing into play the elements of sense and 
reason, and thus stirring up the spiritual influences lying 
dormant within him. Christian Liturgy has its foundations 
laid deep down in Scripture and Tradition. Our Lord 
Himself taught the disciples how to pray; He Himself 
instituted the sacrifice of the new and eternal Testament, 
and commanded His Apostles to do it in memory of Him; 
He Himself instituted the Sacraments, some of which, Bap- 
tism and Confirmation for example, used to be administered 
with the Holy Eucharist. Again, Christ’s words: ‘‘ odife dare 
sanctum canibus, neque muttatis margaritas ante porcos” (Matth. 
vil. 6), besides prompting the disciples to withdraw sacred 
things from the profane, also taught them to treat these sacred 
things with the greatest reverence. 

The faithful in Jerusalem, we learn from the Acts, assembled 
together to break bread. ‘This breaking of bread became to 
them a solemn divine service, in other words, a liturgical 
action. They met, S. Paul teils us, on the first day of the week 
(Sunday). S. Paul's directions about the celebration of the 
Lord’s Supper point to a regular divine service. Furthermore, 
from his epistles it would seem that hymns and edify ng 
discourses added to the solemnity. “. . - Be ye filled,” 
he says, “with the Holy Spirit. Speaking to yourselves in 
“psalms and. hymns, and spiritual canticles, singing and making 
“ melody in your hearts to the Lord: Giving thanks always for 
‘all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God and 
“the Father.” (Ephes. v. 18-20; Col. M1. 16).* Do not the 


® It may be urged that these words refer to private life, not to public worship. That 
they refer directly to private life may be granted, but the Apostle borrowed the 
words from the divine service which sets forth Christian life in its perfection, and 
of which private life ought to be a copy. And thus his words bear indirectiy on 
the Liturgy. Tr. 


FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION. 31 


following words also sound like part of a liturgical hymn? 
“And evidently great is the mystery of piety which was 
“manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared 
“to angeis, hath been preached to the Gentiles, is believed in 
“the world, is taken up in glory.”% 

From these indications we may fairly infer that, even in 
Apostolic times, the liturgy had been considerably developed 
not only in the communities of Jewish Christians, who retained 
their own usages and forms of prayer, but also among Gentile 
Christians. In the post-apostolic Churches these ordinances 
of the Apostles continued in force, and received still further 
deve'opment, as we learn from several historical documents and 
from the old Liturgies, which emanated in substance from the 
Apostles whose names they bear. Pliny the Younger, in his 
letter to Trajan, distinctly asserts that the Christians met on a_ 
certain day before sunrise and sang hymns to Christ their God. 
~ Eusebius also states that, in his time, the faithful were still 
wont to sing canticles, handed down from the early Christians, 
in which they honoured Christ as God.% 

From the writings of Justin, and the recently discovered 
Aisa, we gather that divine worship centred in the reading of 
Scripture and the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. The 
liturgical prayer of thanks (evxapioria) contained the Apostolic 
rule of faith, and hence was called the Canon. Speaking of 
the liturgy of his time, Tertullian invokes Tradition on its 
behalf, saying that it originated in Tradition, was observed in 
faith, and was ratified by constant use. The Fathers by 
affirming that usages in the Church, not historically traceable 
to positive institution, have come down from the Apostles, 
recognize Tradition as their leading principle. Not that they 
were unaware that cultus and liturgy had undergone develop- 
ment since Apostolic times. But they knew that these were a 
natural growth from the seeds sown by the Apostles, From 


26 I Tim. iii. 16. 
27H. E. v, 28 (32, 5). See Chrtstian Apology M1. c. vii, 


32 FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION. 


the fundamental Christian mysteries, as it were from a 
root, have sprung up the many branches and fragrant 
flowers of the liturgy. As these mysteries bear chiefly on 
our Lord’s life, they naturally issued in a corona of feasts 
which, as the year runs its course, call to mind Christ and 
the redemption that He accomplished. In this way arose 
feasts in honour of our Lord and the martyrs, to which 
were added others in honour of the Apostles and the 
Blessed Virgin, which gave new life and solemnity to the 
divine liturgy. 

25. And here we may be allowed to point out once more 
how the Catholic Church differs from other communions 
in this matter. The first great liturgical dispute, that, 
namely, concerning the celebration of Easter, seems to 
show that the Eastern Church began to regard Tradition 
as a dead principle. Nowhere had the liturgy developed 
so rapidly and so richly as in the Greek Church, which 
was, in an especial manner, the liturgical Church. But 
the vigorous life that at first pulsated in her liturgical veins 
soon ceased to flow, and then she became listless and 
shrivelled up into a skeleton of antique forms. What 
avails her boast of having preserved the most ancient 
traditions, if life and energy have gone out of them ? The 
conservative principle, as understood or rather misunder- 
stood by her, has dammed the stream of progress in the- 
ology, worship and discipline. What a different sight 
meets our eyes in the Catholic Church. How beautifully 
the old blends with the new in her worship! Like an ever- 
green planted by the side of the running waters, the living 
Church is ever sending forth new offshoots. But however 
varied its manifestations, however new at first blush 


they often seem, they have all grown out of thertrec>- 


planted by the Apostles, and have derived their nourish- 
ment from the life-force tnat has animated Catholic wor- 
ship for centuries.* Of a truth, in comparing modern 


a& Doctrina Ap.c.9. Justin, AZ. 1., 65,67. See Krauss Real-Encyclopidie tz, 311- 
313. Ireneus, Adv. Her iii., 3, 8; Tertull, De Cor, c. 4, Adv, Mare, iv., 5. 
Probst, Litureie, &’c., Ttibingen, 1870. Thalhofer, Handbuch der Kathol. 
Liturgtk, Freiburg, 1883, 1887. 


, 


FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION, 33 


worship with the worship of the first two centuries, or in 
tracing modern liturgy to its rise and early growth, we cannot 
fail to notice a manifold diversity side by side with resemblance 
in main outline. But in this, even more than in doctrinal 
development, we must beware of cutting down to the roots the 
great tree that, in the course of centuries, has overspread the 
whole earth. If the Holy Spirit abides in the Church, her 
whole life must expand under His guidance, 

26. So vital an element is consistent development in every 
religious principle, that its presence may be detected even in 
religions invented by man. “If we turn our attention ‘o the 
Chinese, Parseces, or Mohammedans, we shall stand astonished 
at the consistency with which they have drawn conclusions and 
built up details from first principles. Anyone who studies 
Greek heathenism critically, cannot fail to see how perfectly all 
successive religious developments harmonized with its funda- 
mental principles. And is not the same thing perceptible in 
mather’s work. 4, £°°Eheé symbolical developments of 
doctrine in his Church are, on the whole, so ciearly the outcome 
of his spirit, that their genuine Lutheran character is unmis- 
takable.”*® Do not our Lord’s words hold good here: ‘By 
their fruits you shall know them?” Should not he who 


‘enunciated adoration in spirit and truth as the principle of 


Christian worship, have looked to the fact that. his work 
would endure? Granting that faith has never quite succeeded, 
in destroying superstition root and branch, or in choking all the ? 
weeds that crop up in the matter of worship, such shortcomings 
are no argument against it. If the Spirit of God was promised 
to the Church to safeguard the faith, he will also make His 
presence felt in ecclesiasticel worship, 

27. ‘Thus the Catholic Church has ever held to the golden 
mean between a fossil conservatism and infinite material 
perfectibility. Both the Greek and Protestant Churches are 
rigidly conservative; the former admitting development for 


29 Mohler, Sysb0lik, p. 350. 


34 FINALITY AND DEVELOPNENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION. 


only a very limited period, the latter considering that the 
“true development of Christianity Nes in a return to the 
“pure form of primitive Biblical Christianity.”8° The other 
extreme, infinite material perfectibility, is the watchword of 
rationalists of all shades and hues. But the Catholic Church, 
while recognizing the absolute character of the revelation 
given by Christ, is also conscious that there is a living Spirit 
dwelling within her till the end of time. Not that she is 
inspired, as Protestants*! interpret the doctrine that she is 
assisted by the Holy Ghost, but the reiigion founded by 
God the Son cannot rest on a dead letter. It must be a 
living force. It must have an unchangeable basis, and still 
be capable of being expanded by the Holy Spirit, even as 
God the Son unites in one person the cternal nature of God 
with the temporal nature of man, which latter admits of 
development. Protestant writers, like Hase, imagine that the 
Catholic Church is bound to pass off her new doctrines as old. 
Thus, they think, she hopes to cloak the mistrust with which 
her own members regard the presence of the creative power of 
the Spirit within her. It is clear that these writers neither 
understand the nature of development, nor the presence of 
the vivifying Spirit. For the living spirit, at work within her, 
makes the very letter of Holy Scripture quiver with life. 
Though deeply convinced that the Christian religion was 
capable of development, the Catholic Church has never 
supposed that this development depended on an everflowing 
stream of revelations, as the following words from Irenzeus 
abundantly prove. After brushing aside the errors of the 
Gnostics on creation and redemption, he proceeds thus: “The 
“preaching of the Church is everywhere consistent, and 
“continues in an even course, and receives testimony ‘from 
“the prophets, the apostles and all the disciples—as I have 


20 Strauss i. 259. 


3x Hase, Handbuch der Protest. Polemik, 4th edit. 1878, p. 70: Tschakert, 
Evangelische Polemik, Gotha, 1885, p. 50. Scheele, Handbuch der Theol. 
Wissenschaft vor Zoeckler, Nordiingen, 1834, il. 399 


—— 


FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION. 25 


“proved—through [those in] the bezinning, the middle, and 
“the end, and through the entire dispensation of God, and 
“that well-grounded system which tends to man’s salvation, 
“namely, our faith: which; having been received from the 
“Church, we do preserve, and which always, by the Spirit 
“of God, renewing its youth, as if it were some precious 
“deposit in an excellent vessel, causes the vessel itself 
“containing it to renew its youth also. For this gift of God 
“has been entrusted to the Church, as breath was to the first 
“created man, for this purpose that all the members receiving 
‘it may be vivified . . . For in the Church, it is. said, 
“*God hath set apostles, prophets, teachers,’ and all the 
“other means through which the Spirit works; of which 
“all those are not partakers, who do not join themselves to 
“the Churcn, but defraud themselves of life through their 
“perverse opinions and infamous behavour.” Later theologians, 
iike S. Thomas and the Scholastics, Turrecremata and others, 
adopted, as we have said, the same standpoint.®? * 


32 Irenzeus, Adv. Hereses iii. 24. 12 (Clack’s Trans lation). S. Thomas, Sum. Theol, 
li. ii. r. 9. Turrecr. (Torguemada) Summa de Ecclesia i, 78. 


* This is a point of capital importance, on which we wish to lay particular stress, as 
there are many, non-Catholics especially, who fail to grasp the distinction clearly 
and precisely. The Church, in her office of teacher, is assisted by the Holy 
Ghost, who explains and develops truths that have been revealed once for all, and 
that are contained somehow in the Apostolic deposit. So, in drawing inferences 
and conclusions from the data furnished by the deposit, the Church cannot make 
a mistake. But He does not, as it'were, simply whisper these inferences into her . 
ear, and relieve her of the trouble of conducting her researches and investigations 
ina human way. And hence the Church is not an organ for receiving new revela 
‘ions, but for preserving in its fulness and entirety the revelation already given 
In this respect she stands in a totally different position from the old prophets and 
also from tne Apostles. Their function was twofold: To supplement existing 

. revelctions with new matter, and to explain and preserve, independently of their 
own researches, the révelation that alre: ady existed. Hence they are called organs 
of revelation. The Church, then, merely requires the assistance of the Holy 
Spirit. But this is absolutely necessary. For if, in pursuance of her duty and 
office, she is to lay down the law of belief for the faithful, she must be able to give 
an absolute guarantee that her teaching is undoubtedly and unmistakably God’s 
revealed word. Belief, as we understand it, demands absolute certainty that the 
object prsposed to our belief is the very word of God Himself. But the Church 
cannot guarantee such absolute certainty, except in virtue of the divine assistance 
vouchsafed to her when she teaches with authority Now under the name 
development the author comprises the chief functions of the Eeclesta docens. And 
hence Christian development postulates the presence cf the Holy Ghost, and 
vice-versa the presence of the Holy Ghost necessarily entails development. See 
Chapter viii. Tr. 


30 FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION, 


28. From the Protestant theory, which denied that the 
Toly Ghost was abiding in the Church and gu'd'ug her, and 
which held that Revelation—the water of lie —was sealed up 
in the vessels of Scripture, twd inconveniences inevitably 
resulted. In the hypothesis that the Chuzch had departed 
from the letter of Scripture, a return to primiiive Chuistianity 
became impossible; for, as Hase says, no living tody ever 
reverts to a previous state.®3 Again, despite al! checks imposed 
by symbols and confessions, the need for liv ag development 
will make itself felt with such irresistible force that, as Strauss 
observes, another source will have to be substituted for the 
Spirit of God, to wit, the spirit of man.?* And so it came to 
pass that, when the living spirit was banished from the Church, 
the chain of historical continuity was snapped. The truths 
that had hitherto developed in a direct line from Christ, and 
had grown naturally out of the primitive stock of revelation, 
that had moulded human ideas and institutions, and subjected 
the whole cycle of human life to the Spirit of Christ, were 
henceforth thrown a prey to human fancy and caprice. 

Of course there was no intention of departing from the spirit 
of the sacred writers; but the human spirit unconsciously 
ousted the Spirit of Holy Scripture, and usurped His place. 
And soon it roamed at large, over the New Testament as well 
as the Old, and appointed reason supreme arbiter of Holy 
Scripture and Christianity. Reason had burst its bonds and 
could no longer be held in restraint, for the power inherent in 
the principle asserted itself. Writers of the vulgar Rationalistic 
School, by means of grammatical and _ historical glosses, 
explained away the supernatural element in revelation, put 
Holy Scripture on the same level as profane writings, and set 
up a shallow religion of natural reason and a weak-kneed 
morility. Speculative rationalists, on the other hand, considered 
religion a necessary form of knowledge for the uneducated, that 


33 Hase, p. 68. 
34 Strauss, l.c. 


FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT DOF CHRISTIAN REVELATION. 37 


would disappear with progress, when the mind should rise to 
the knowledge of the absolute. ‘Truth and perfection are not 
to be found at the beginning, but at the end.® Thus this 
school, while pretending to hold Christ. in high esteem, 
degraded Christianity to the level of other religions and made 
it a mere link in the history ot religion. 

29. To avoid this conclusion, a distinction has been drawn 
between fundamental and non-fundamental dogmas. But this 
distinction, besides resting ona purely external aspect of the doc- 
trinal edifice, cuts the ground from under Holy Scripture. How 
is it possible to hold fast to the Trinity and Christ’s divinity, the 
work of redemption and belief in eternal life, and yet to hand 
over to individual fancy all the other doctrines that Scripture 
and the Church teach with equal certitude? For ounce the 
principle of infallible revelation is broken through, no limit can 
be set to the principle of free rational enquiry. Where 
authority fails, subjectivity steps in. Unity -ecomes impossible, 
save the unity cf opposition to Church authority. “The 
business of Protestantism,” says a modern theologian,*6 ‘is to 
fight Rome, and at the same time to further the interests of 
pure Christianity. But Protestants hold widely divergent views 
as to what constitutes the inalienable truths of Christianity.” 
Substantially, they say, it is the grace of Christ that brings 
pardon to the repentant sinner for his past transgressions, that 
gives him strength to do good, that enables him who, amid 
life’s turmoil and trouble, turns with his whole heart and with 
confidence to the God revealed by Jesus, to attain inwaid peace 
and joy, and to succeed in doing good. “It should not be 
forgotten, by those schools of thought, whose direct aim it is to 
safeguard the faith once delivered, that the worth of the highest 
goods cannot be proved, but only ‘elt. And those, who make 
it their business to effect a reconciliation between the Church’s 


35 See Kuhn, Zinleitung p* 131 seq. 


36 Holtzmann, » heol. Literatur Zeitung, 1885, No.9. See Hase viii. and Ddéllinger, 
Kirche und Kirchen, Papstthum und Kirchenstaat. Miinchen 186r, p. 412, 485, 
seq. 


38 FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION. 


teaching and modern philosophy, should beware lest, through 
their negligence, religious life should suffer shipwieck.”* 

How ill Christianity would fare, were there no mean between 
these two extremes! Has Christ wholly abandoned the saving 
gifts of the gospel to the inner experience of the faithful and 
the unsteady verdict of human reason? No, the common 
deposit of the Apostles and the living word of Christ cannot 
have been committed to a ship without rudder or compass. 
‘The Spirit of Christ must steer Christ’s work. The Church of 
Christ must be an inexhaustible fountain ever giving living 
water to the thirsty ; a vine ever producing wine to gladden the 
heart of man. And as good ground blights not the husband- 
man’s hopes, but yields corn for daily bread, so the Church of 
Christ must be a fertile soil producing fruits of grace. And our 
heavenly Father who prunes the vine, and plants the vineyard, 
and fences it round, and makes the soil fertile, will take care 
that in the Church of His Son, new life and vigour are ever 
streaming forth from a supernatural source. It will be His work 
to see that redemption, without let or hindrance, brings to all 
men, at all times, youth and strength. ‘This His solicitude we 
see realized in the Church, the guardian of absolute revelation, 
which, by dispensing the grace of the Holy Spirit, establishes 
the Kingdom of God on earth. 

30. The Vatican Council concludes its exposition of the 
relations between faith and reason with the words: ‘For the 
“doctrine of faith which God hath revealed has not been pro- 
“posed, like a philosophical invention, to be perfected by 
“human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit 
“to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully kept and infallibly 
“declared. Hence also that meaning of the sacred dogmas is 
** perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother the Church 


* The English reader will not be unfamiliar with this kind of cant. It is wide- 
spread in our time and country.. In plain words, it means that the religieus 
life of man is quite independent of religious truth, Yet strange to say, this_ 
unnatural and atsurd dualism between mind and heart is seriously asserted, 
at times, by men of no mean intellectual power. Tr. 


FINALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION. 39 


“has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed 
*‘ from, under the pretence or pretext of a deeper comprehension 
“of men. Let, then, the intelligence, science, and wisdom of 
“each and all, of individuals and of the whole Church, in all 
‘ages and all times, increase and flourish in abundance and 
“vigour; but simply in its own proper kind, that is to say, in 
“one and the same doctrine, one and the same sense, one and 
“same judgment (Vincent of Lerins Common. n. 28). 


37 Constit. dogm. de fide Cath. C 4 Cardinal Manning’s translation in Petré 
Privilegiusm p. 200. 


CHAPTER II. 


THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 


r. It was incumbent on Christ, the Messias promised by 
the prophets, to strike a new covenant with His people and 
the nations, and to establish a new kingdom in place of the 
old theocracy. In describing Christ’s triple office of king, 
priest and prophet, the prophets have, at the same time, 
sketched His kingdom, in its outlinés and constitution, in 
its development, aims and fortunes, with such clearness, that 
a complete picture of the structure actually erected by Christ 
may be easily gleaned from their descriptions. S. Augustine, 
when defending the Catholic Church against the sects, expresses 
the opinion that the prophets have spoken in even clearer 
terms of the Church than of Christ. For, as a rule, he says, 
they seem to shroud Christ in a veil of mystery, but preach 
the Church quite plainly.! In saying this S. Augustine had 
chiefly in view that mark of the Church which is most easily 
recognized, namely, its universa‘ity or catholicity; but elsewhere 
he dwells also on other marks as foretold by the prophets 
of old. 

That the prophets generally expected a Kingdom of God 
to spring up in Messianic times is as clear as noonday. The 
older prophets, do not, indeed, employ the phrase, “ Kingdom 
of God,” but they frequently depict the glory of the Messianic 
‘age: justice, holiness, peace and grace are to be poured 


1 Exnarr. in Ps. 30. Ser. ii. n. 8. See Catech. Council of Trent, i. to. r Selbst, 
Die Kirche Jesu Christi &., Mainz, 1883. 


THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 41 


abroad on all peoples ; the sun of truth is to shine on the 
heathen, and men are to be united with God in Immanuel. 
‘‘ How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him 
‘that bringeth good tidings, and that preacheth peace ; 
‘‘ of him that sheweth forth good, that preacheth salvation, 
‘‘ that saith to Sion: Thy God shall reign.”’ (Isaias Li. 7). 
We can almost fancy these words to have been uttered by 
the Apostle of the Gentiles, who, writing to the Romans, 
says: ‘‘ For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink : 
‘‘ but justice and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.’’ (Rom. 
XIv. 17). Oftener, however, they borrow the colouring of 
their prophecies from the typical kingdom of David and 
Solomon. ‘‘A king shall reign, and shall be wise; and 
‘shall execute judgment and justice on the earth . . . and 
‘‘ this is the name that they shall call him: The Lord, our 
‘just oné.”’ (Jerem. Xxv1. 5, 6). 

The higher character of this kingdom is already seen in 
such passages as the preceding, but in others it stands out 
with still greater clearness. In these latter, too, Jerusalem 
and Sion figure as the centre of God’s old kingdom ; but 
these outward phrases have become, almost imperceptibly, 
luminous with spiritual meaning, betokening a Messianic 
kingdom in which, besides a remnant from Judaism, men 
from all nations shall ‘call upon God’s name, and find peace 
and happiness in God. Here, again, the phraseology and 
imagery, in which the Messianic blessings are depicted, are, 
as it were, echoes from that Paradise in which man and 
beast dwelt in untroubled and unclouded harmony with na- 
ture and with one another. But this only shows that a 
Messianic kingdom was to come, which would restore the 
kingdom that God had set up in the beginning. 

The vivid and concrete style of the prophets made it nec- 
essary for them to lay the scene of the kingdom of God in the 
land of Palestine. The promised land, Israel’s inheritance, 
was to the Israelitea symbol and at the same time a pattern 


42 THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 


of his home in heaven, of his eternal inheritance. An Israelite’s 
highest happiness was to dwell in peace and contentment 
in the promised land, flowing with milk and honey. How 
then, could the prophets have painted the future Messianic 
kingdom in brighter colours.? Just here and there they hint 
that the kinedom of God is not of this world, but only the later 
propbets put this thought prominently forward.2 Sophonias, 
(about 620) however, seen.c to be an exception. In him this 
feature is represented as essentia: to the new kingdom. Of 
Israel’s glorious victories over their enemies he either makes 
no mention or ascribe; them to God. He makes no allusion 
to the Messias’ royal character. In his eyes the new Israel is 
poor and needy, without riches, external splendour, or prestige. 
Its power is spiritual and ideal in its nature. The chastisements 
impending over Juda are for its inward purification. And 
thus people from the ends of the earth shall be brought 
to the knowledge of God. In the Jerusalem of untroubled 
peace none but the humble and simple shall dwell. Jeremias, 
too, saw in vision the fall of Jerusalem and the misfortunes 
of its people. Faithless Juda is rejected, and its sanctuary 
destroyed. And God will set other shepherds over His people, 
after His own heart, and will reveal Himself anew in Jerusalem. 

2. Heretofore, then, we have not met the name “ kingdom 
of God” or “kingdom of Heaven,” which Daniel was the first 
to use. One after another he saw powerful kingdoms crumble 
to nieces, after doing their part towards preparing the way for the 
new kingdom. Daniel is in an especial and peculiar manner 
the prophet who beheld in the kingdom of God a spiritual, 
world subduing force. After explaining what were the four 
kingdoms that Nabuchodonosor had seen in vision, he this 
proceeds: ‘‘In the days of those kingdoms, the God of 
“heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, 
“and His kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people: 
“Cand it shall break in pieces and consume all those kingdoms 


@ Zachar. ix. 9. See Isaias liii, 


THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 43 


“and itself shall stand for ever.” (Daniel 11. 44). “The 
“saints of the most high God shall take the kingdom: and 
“they shall possess the kingdom for ever and ever.” (vil. 18). 
“And the kingdom, and power, and the greatness of the 
‘kingdom, under the whole heaven, may be given to the 
“people of the saints of the Most High: whose kingdom is 
“an everlasting kingdom, and all kings shall serve Him and 
“shall obey Him.” (vu. 27). The foundation of this new and 
eternal kingdom was laid by the Son of Man, whom Daniel 
beheld in the vision of the night coming with the clouds 
of heaven. ‘And he came even to the ancient of days: and 
‘they presented him before Him. And He gave him power, 
“and glory, and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes, and 
“tongues shall serve him. His power is an everlasting power 
“that shall not be taken away : and his kingdom, that shall not 
“be destroyed.” (vil. 13, 14). In these words Daniel has 
given expression to two characteristics of this kingdom: it will 
be set up mot by an earthly potentate, but by a Son of Man 
sent by God, and as a Givine kingdom it will extend to all 
peoples and times. 

3. How deeply the idea of a new kingdom had sunk into 
the minds of the Jews we know from the Gospels. The Son 
of Man is “the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God 
“shall give unto him the throne of David, His father ; and He 
“shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever, and of His 
“kingdom there shall be no end.” (Luke 1. 32, 33). “He 
“shall save his people from their sins.” (Matth. 1.21). The 
Magnificat and Benedictus give an instructive ins ght into the 
hopes and aspirations of pious Israelites. The Jews generally 
were looking forward to the Messianic kingdom.? That the 
kingdom should come was their staple prayer Was it not 
then in accordance with the whole spirit of prophecy, that 
John the Baptist proclaimed the kingdom of God to be at 
hand, and that our Lord began His public ministry with the 


g Luke ii. 25; xvii 203 xxii. 18; xxiii. 51. Mark xv.43. II Tim. iv. 8. 


44 THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 


same watchword? The very fact that the phtase “kingdom 
of heaven” is peculiar to S. Matthew’s Gospel, and is almost 
uniformly used except where a special and more personal 
sivnifica'ion is intended,’ indicates, its connection with ancient 
prophecy. John ut. 5, however, would seem to be an excep- 
tion. The Sinaitic codex, along with different Fathers, reads 
“kingdom of heaven,” instead of “kingdom of God.” But 
this reading has been rightly abandoned as a mere correction 
from S. Matthew. The expression “kingdom of heaven” 
occurs, indeed, pretty frequently in the language of the Jewish 
schools, but it corresponds neither in usage nor in meaning to 
S. Matthew’s. For there is no proof that their phrase “ king- 
dom of heaven” (malkuth haschamajim) was in use anterior 
to Christ. In the later rabbinical usage, which is maintained 
in the Talmud and Jewish liturgy up to the present day, the 
expression refers to the Jewish theocracy, not to the Messianic 
kingdom. ‘The only passage in the Targum that will bear the 
meaning is that on Mickzas iv. 7: * And the kingdom of 
“heaven shall be revealed on Mount Sion, now and for ever.” 
But even here it is only equivalent to the rabbinical phrase, 
“kingdom of God.”* Possibly the rabbis were induced to 
put the word heaven in place of the sacred name Jahve, which 
they shrunk from uttering. 

The reason why one and the same expression is used in a 
different sense by S. Matthew and 5. John on the one side, and 
by the Talmudists and Targumists on the other, is not far to 
seek. Both parties took their stand on the common ground of 
ancient prophecy. On this they ever kept their eyes steadily 
fixed. Now Jesus Christ had fulfilled the prophecy in a 
spiritual sense; whence the rabbis, breathing hostility to 
Christianity, were naturally driven to contend that the expres- 
sion had reference to the Jewish theocracy and not to the 
Messianic kingdom, From the moment, however, that Jesus 
styled Himself the Son of Man, all doubt as to the identity of 


4 xii. 285 xix. 245 xxi. 31, 43 See. vi. 10. 
s Targ. ad Is. 49, 9; 53, 10. 


THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 45 


the kingdom of heaven with Daniel’s kingdom was re- 
moved. It wasclear that Jesus the Son of Man came down 
from heaven, established the everlasting kingdom foretold 
by Daniel, and showered down heaven!s blessings on man- 
kind. That there is a twofold kingdom of heaven, one in 
the next world and one on earth, is sufficiently indicated 
by S. Matthew as often as the Heavenly Father, the Father 
in heaven, is mentioned.® The latter phrase occurs nowhere 
else, except in Mark x1. 25, where it is naturally in place, 
and is parallel to Matth. vi. rq. 

4. Was not S. Matthew, it may be asked, induced by his 
antagonism to the Roman Empire to lay greater stress on 
the distinction between the two kingdoms? In the then 
existing anti-Roman feeling this would be intelligible ; but 
then S. Matthew is hardly more decisive in his opposition 
to the Roman Empire than to the Jewish nation. That op- 
position, again, was not less pronounced in the rabbis, and 
yet it had no such effect upon them. They never relaxed 
in their pretensions, or modified their political views and 
ideals. Instead of hastening the coming of the kingdom 
promised by the prophets, by bearing wrongs patiently and 
with resignation to God’s will, they wished to establish it 
by force ; and they pictured the Messianic era as a day of 
wrath, in which they were to be the instruments of God’s 
vengeance on the heathen. Even John the Baptist had not 
at first fully outgrown this peculiar Jewish conception. 
He, too, conceived the beginnings of the Messianic king- 
dom differently from what they were. His thoughts cen- 
tred on the Messianic judgment, when one mightier than 
himself, with the power of a Messias8-King, would thor- 
oughly cleanse his floor, and separate the wheat from the 
Ghai, (iit. 12). 

It is open to question whether the Jews drew a distinction 
6 M. vi. 9; vii. rr, 213 x, 32: xii. 50; xvi. 17; xviii, 10, 1g. See Schanz, Comment. in 


Marc. p. 346. 


* This inference would not seem to be altogether necessary. From the fact that he 
delivered his message in the language of the prophets, it does not necessarily 
follow that his own spiritual and supernatural knowledge did not reach beyond 
at; Dr; 


46 THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 


between the kingdom of heaven in this world and that in the 
next. When, therefore, S. Matthew draws the distinction, he 
is acting independently of political motives. In the majority 
of passages in his gospel, the kingdom of heaven is represented 
as a kingdom that came down from heaven to earth. Other 
passages that speak of it as a kingdom on earth, do not deny 
its heavenly origin. For not only is the Father in heaven, who 
rules all, and to whom all things tend, its author and centre, 
but its gifts and good things are gifts from the Father of lights. 
And if Jahve, who pitched His tents among His people, was 
the King of Israel under the old covenant, so God’s nearness 
in the New Testament through the Incarnation is a link joining 
earth and heaven far more closely, and transforming God’s 
kingdom on earth into a kingdom of heaven, The kingdom of 
heaven mentioned in the gospel was founded when God became 
man and poured forth a heavenly life of grace and sanctity on 
earth, in order to convert this vale of tears into a Paradise, 
and to win back the kingdom of the prince of this world to its 
Lord and Maker. The kingdom will be completed, when Christ 
shall come again in glory and majesty (Parousia), to judge the 
living and the dead. It is, indeed, a spiritual kingdom; but 
this by no means implies either that salvation is accomplished 
exclusively in heaven, or that this spiritual conception of it 1s 
the growth of a later (apocalyptic) age, after Israel had aban- 
doned all hope of seeing an earthly fulfilment of tne Theocracy, 
If, as some critics contend, the gospel of S. Matthew consists 
of two distinst parts, the Zeg/a and the narratives, the phrase 
“kingdom of heaven” at all events must be assigned to the 
more ancient. It is the dominant note of the whole gospel, that 
was re-echoed in after ages, Justin, the Apostolic Consti- 
tutions, and Ephrem use the expression, no doubt under the 
influence of tha gospel of S. Maithew, which, whatever its 
purpose, whether anti-Jewish or not, is at any rate most 
prophetical in character. 

s. The later evangelists, though, in all probability, they 


THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 47 


were acquainted with the first gospel, eschewed the phrase. 
And, indeed, to the Gentile Christian reader it was less 
intelligible and more easily misunderstood than the parallel 
phrase “kingdom of God.” This latter is more easily grasped, 
whether by it we understand the community of those who pray 
that God’s kingdom may come, and that His will may be done 
on earth as it is in heaven, or whether we think of it as a 
kingdom that has its seat in God. For our present purpose 
the distinction is of no consequence, except in so far as it 
marks a step in advance, and denotes a further development of 
the ideas underlying the term. Anyhow the disappearance of 
the term was not due to a desire, on the part of the evangelists, 
to efface all memory of the Messianic kingdom which the Son 
of David had founded. For the very fact that they introduce 
Christ’s forerunner shows that they had in mind and wished to 
recall the long stages of preparation through which the Old 
Testament had passed. Ilence we are not surprised to find 
that Mark has recorded that the phrase “kingdom of David” 
was coniained in the joyful shout raised by the multitude on 
the occasion of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem (XI. ro). 
This is the oniy instance in which it occurs in the New 
Testament. It is a phrase similar to “Son of David” which is 
frequently found in S. Matthew. 

6. For a more detailed description of the kingdom of 
heaven in the New Testament, we naturally turn to the first 
Gospel. That the Messias is to be its king we gather from 
the Baptist. And when he baptizes unto the remission of 
sins, and requires the people to bring forth fruits of penance 
by confessing their sins, he plainly teaches that man’s inward 
conversion and regeneration is the goal at which the new 
kingdom aims. Jesus also demands repentance, as a necessary 
preparation for the new kingdom. We read that He went 
about all Galilee preaching the Gospel of the kingdom. (Matth. 
Iv. 23). What this really meant is shown from the: Sermon 
on the Mount, wherein, so to speak, Christ unfolded His 


48 THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 


programme, The beatitudes are not, indeed, concerned with 
this life alone; but how could they have formed such a 
magnificent introduction to, the Sermon on the Mount, if they 
had been merely a picture of the kingdom of the blessed? 
How could they have formed the basis of our Lord’s demand 
for the fulfilment of the law? ' Though we may not attach 
any special force to the argument that they are spoken 
throughout in the present tense, seeing that they are general 
sentences,—still their very aim and purpose is to point to a 
kingdom that our Saviour was to found in Opposition to 
the worldly and external ideas of the Jews. By promising the 
kingdom of heaven both at the beginning and the end, He 
sufficiently indicates that all other bless ngs have reference 
primarily to it; in a word, that they are spiritual blessings. 

7. Accordingly we find that the qualifications for citizenship 
in the kingdom of heaven are spiritual, and that spiritual 
blessings are the rewards it holds out. These blessings, in 
their totality, constitute the kingdom of God. The poor in 
spirit and the persecuted possess the kingdom. Could the 
contrast to this world’s goods be more sharply defined? 
Comfort to the sorrowful, possession of the land to the weak, 
feeding the hungry, and giving drink to the thirsty, mercy 
obtained by shewing mercy, the sight of God to the clean 
of heart, the gift of sonship to the peacemakers ;—all this 
points to a spiritual citizenship which bases happiness on 
contentment, mutual charity and resignation to God. Of a 
truth man’s infirmity cannot fully rise to this ideal, and 
therefore he directs his gaze to a better future for its attainment. 
The Church does the same, by applying the eight beatitudes 
to the feast of All Saints, in order to honour the blessed in 
heaven, and to encourage those who are still struggling on 
earth. But this very fact, while shewing that we are to look 
for the eternal and imperishable reward only in heaven, also 
implies that the kingdom of heaven on earth is the battlefield 
on which we are to win an immortal crown. 


THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 49 


Christ Himself declares that the old kingdom was broken up 
and the new begun with the advent of the Baptisi. ‘‘ From the 
* days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven 
 suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away.” (Matth. x1. 
12.) When Jesus had pointed out to a Scribe the first and 
greatest commandment of love, He received for answer: “Weil, 
*“ master, thou hast said in truth, that there is one God, and 
“there is no other besides Him. And that He should be loved 
“with the whole heart, and with the whole understanding, and 
“with the whole soul, and with the whole strength; and to 
“love one’s neighbour as himself, is a greater thing than all 
“‘holocausts and sacrifices. And Jesus secing that he had 
“answered wisely, suid to him: Thou art not far from the 
“kingdom of God.” (Mark xt. 32 seq.) When Jesus sent 
forth the seventy-two disciples, He said to them: “ Heal 
‘the sick that are therein, and say to them: The kingdom of 
“God is come niga unto you.” (Luke x. g 11.) In reply to 
the Pharisees who ascvibed his power to cast out devils to a 
compact with Beelzebub, Jesus said: ‘ But if I by the Spirit of 
be cast out devils, then is the kingdom of God come upon 

you.’ Nas h. xit, 28). “And when He was asked by the 
“Pharisees: When the kinsdom of God should come? He, 
eae ering them said: The kingdom cf God cometh not with 
“observation, Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold 
“there; for, lo, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke xvu. 
zo 21). Joseph of Arimathza, a senator, a good and just 
man, who had not consented to their counsel and doings, 
“himself waited for the kingdom of God.” (Luke xxiit. 56-1). 

8. Jesus assigns duties to the cilicens of the kingdom of 
heaven in the present life. They must be faithiul stewards and 
hum ile believers. ‘Therefore is the kingdom of heaven 
“likened to a king who would take an accsunt of his servants.” 
(Matth. xvi. 23); “to a master of a i2mily, who went out early 
“in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.” (xx. ae 
toa “king who made a marriage for his son” oa AY “to ten 


5° THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 


“virgins, who taking their lamps, went out to meet the bridc- 
‘groom and the bride.” (xxv. 1). He requires His disciples, if 
they would enter into the kingdom of heaven, to become as 
little children. ‘‘ Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as 
“this little child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” 
(xvi. 1 seq.). ‘Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God 
‘and His justice; and all these things shall be added unto you.” 
(v1. 33). As Jesus began the Sermon on the Mount with the 
beatitudes, so He finished by promising a kingdom in the life 
beyond: ‘‘ Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, sha!l 
“enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doth the will 
‘*‘of my Father whois in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom 
“ of heaven.” (vil. 21). Many Fathers refer the petition in the 
Our Father to the future kingdom: Jesus bids the high priests 
and scribes to look to His second coming (see also Matth. xxv1. 
29). Then shall His disciples see the kingdom of God, and 
the peoples shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.?7 
Only when this goal is reached, will the kingdom of heaven on 
earth cease. The work of redemption finishes with the next 
age of the world, and all things shall again be subjected to the 
Father. 

9g. ‘*‘ Afterwards,” writes S. Paul, ‘the end, when He shal! 
‘have delivered up the kingdom to God and the I’ather, when 
“He shall have abolished all principality, and authority, and 
“power. For He must reign, until He hath put all His enemies 
“under His feet. And the enemy, Death, shall be destroyed 
*Jast.” (I Cor. 24-26). In these words the Apostle points 
out the zegative duty that devolves on the kingdom of God, 
namely, the destruction of the kingdom of Satan, sin and 
death. Its positive function consists in healing the wounds 
made by sin, and in promoting man’s spiritual and temporal 
well-being. Now both these functions have to be exercised 
in and upon human society, and must, therefore, consist in 


Luke ix. 27; xiii. 28; xiv. 15; xxii. 18; Matth. viii. 11; xviii. 3, 25 5 xix. 233 Mark 
ix. 47, John iii, 5 


THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 5I 


external as well as internal action; in a word, the kingdom of 
_God must be visible. Men must know where it is and which 
it is. This double aspect of the kingdom of God is well 
brought out by the words and example of our Lord Himself. 
As a clear proof to men that the kingdom of God had come, 
He appeals to His power of working miracles and casting 
out devils. (Luke x1. 14-20). His authority and office and 
work were thus plain and unmistakable. On the other hand, 
He says that His kingdom is not of this world (Luke xviu. 
36), that is, He spurns the means which the mighty ones of 
the earth employ to establish and extend their power. His 
kingdom comes not with observation, that is, with external 
pomp and splendour; its voice is not heard in the street. 
(Matth. xu. 18. 19). In other words the kingdom of God 
will be like Christ Himself; its strength divine and invisible, 
its main purpose and means spiritual, but itself, like the 
God-Man, must take its place and position amidst a world 
of sense. Hence He gave to His disciples, besides the grace 
of internal conversion, power to heal and to cast out devils, 
as He Himself had done; reminding them, however, that this 
was but a means, not the end of the kingdom of heaven. 
“And the seventy-two returned with joy, saying: Lord, the 
‘devils also are subject to us in thy name. And he said to 
“them: I saw Satan as lightning falling from heaven . 
“But yet rejoice not in this that spirits are subject unto 
“you: but rejoice in this that your names are written in 
“heaven.” (Luke x. 17-20). 

10. The name Jesus brought terror to the devils, but 
happiness and salvation to the disciples. The confession of this 
name became the password and external mark of recognition of 
the citizens of the kingdom of God. Had not our Lord 
declared those blessed who were reviled and hated and 
persecuted for His name’s sake? “For so they persecuted 
“the prophets that were before you.” (Matth. v. 12). Has 
He not promised: ‘‘ Whosoever shall eonfess me before men, 


52 THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 


“‘T will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven; 
“but whosoever shall deny me before men, I will also deny 
‘him before my Father who is in heaven”? (Matth. x. 32-33). 
This confession, however, is not a mere lip-service—a saying, 
Lord, Lord; but as the citizens of a worldly kingdom must 
execute the behests of an earthly monarch, so Chnist’s disciples 
must do the will of the Father who is in heaven. God’s 
kingdom has also its laws and ordinances which derive their 
importance from the sovereign authority that gave them. 

As the soldier in the army swears fealty to his sovereign, and 
wears the badge of his commander, so the soldier of Christ 
must wear the sign of Christ upon himself, and be loyal and 
true to Him as his King and sovereign Lord. Both conditions 
are necessary. To become a member of the kingdom of 
God an external and an internal qualification are required. This 
is implied in the words of our Lord to Nicodemus (John u11. 3, 
5): “Amen, amen, I say to thee, except a man be born again, 
“he cannot see the kingdom of God. . . . unless a man 
‘be born ascin of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter 
“into the kingdom of God.” Whether we here refer the word 
“kingdom of God” chiefly to the kingdom on earth, or to that 
bey nd this life, this much is clear: that baptism is put forth 
not merely as an external condit'on or empty sign, but as an 
internal, regular, and essential institution of that kingdom, 
whereby the inward man is renewed. The same appears, more 
clearly still, from the charge of our Lo:d to the Apostles: 
‘“‘Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations: baptizing them... J 
‘teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- 
“manded you.” (Matth. xxvi1. 18-20). Baptism, as involving 
the observance of God’s commandments, is the badge of 
membership of the kingdom of heaven. 

“In the Old Law circumcision, which Jahve enjoined on 
Abraham as a sign of the Covenant, wes a type of Baptism. 
The uncircumcised were exterminated. In the New Law 
circumcision of heart has, indeed, supplanted circumcision of 


THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 53 
the flesh, and yet, since man is a compound of matter and 
spirit, spiritual regeneration must be linked to a visible sign. 
The God-man, who conversed with men in a visible form, 
required an outward token of union with the spiritual kingdom 
of God. This significance of baptism, as indicating member- 
ship of God’s kingdom, is clearly seen from S. John’s preparatory 
baptism, which for saintly Israelites was “fin very deed a 
circumcision of the heart of the nation.” Josephus relates that 
John bade the Jews to practise virtue, to comport themselves 
with justice towards one another, and with piety towards God, 
and to use baptism as a means of union for the purpose of the 
new Covenant.’ Of course the baptism of Jesus is not a mere 
means of outward union, nor a mere symbol of inward renewal, 
as were circumcision and John’s baptism. ‘These could not 
effect the remission of sins, that they symbolized and fore- 
shadowed. That was to be the work of Christian baptisi., 
Still Christian baptism itself is also a symbol, a sign of the 
Triune God, who has marked off the citizens of the kingdom of 
God from the children of this world. Baptism, moreover, 
being destined for all peoples and nations, is a more universal 
sign than circumcision. 

11. There is yet another sign of membership to be men- 
tioned. Jesus, marvelling over the centurion’s faith, uttere? 
these memorable words: ‘‘ Many shall come from the east and 
“the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob 
“in the kingdom of heaven.” We have already interpreted 
this phrase, in the preceding pages, of the future kingdom. 
But the very fact that these werds were levelled at the Jews, 
justifies us in explaining this fellowship in the kingdom of 
heaven with the just of the Old Law, as typical of those who 
are truly God’s table-companions in the Messianic kingdom on 
eartn. The partaking in a common table is yet another visible 
sign that they belong to the kingdom, and participate in its 
goods and blessings. Verily Jesus has promised to give His 


8 Axntig. xviii. 5, & 


54 THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 


disciples His flesh to eat and His blood to drink, that they 
may have eternal life. (John vi. 56 seq.). Andon the night 
before His passion He promulgated to His disciples the New 
Covenant. He assured them that by eating this bread and 
drinking this chalice they would live in Him, and through Hra 
in the Father; and by bidding them to do this in memory of 
Him, He instituted a love-feast by which all the faithful were to 
be united in the closest bonds with one another, and with their 
Redeemer. The purifying waters of baptism and the bread of 
life are the two great signs set up by Christ Himself, to show 
that the kingdom of (od first established in Paradise is again 
restored. 

12. But Jesus clearly forsaw the dangers looming in the 
future, and threatening the kingdom of God that He had 
restored. He knew that the wily serpent that first caused dis- 
sension and created a breach between God and man, would not 
lose all its venomous power, even after He had crushed its 
head. He could not therefore take better precautions to guard 
the new community from hurt, than by unfolding its future 
fortunes, and laying bare the wicked artifices of its foe. God’s 
kingdom, though not of the world, is in the world, and is not 
unswayed by its strifes and struggles. And therefore Jesus 
revealed the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven to the disciples, 
but to the multitude He spoke in parables. 

The sower went forth to sow the seed of the word. Some 
seed fell by the wayside, and some sprang up indeed, but never 
reached maturity. The word never profits even the greater 
' number of those who receive it unto salvation. In time of 
affliction and persecution many fall away, while the cares and 
riches and pleasures of this life choke the word in others. This 
distinction between the good and bad members of God’s kingdom 
is still more marked in the parable of the cockle among the 
wheat. ‘The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that 
“sowed good seed in his field. But while the men were asleep, | 
‘‘his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat.” 


. 


THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 55 


(Matth. xu. 24. 25). And the master would not allow his 
servants to gather up the cockle, lest perhaps they should root 
up the wheat together with it, but he bade them suffer it to 
grow till the harvest-time. Again, ‘‘the kingdom of heaven 1s 
“like to a net cast into the sea, and gathering together all kinds 
“ of fishes.” (Matth. x1. 47). “The net of this kingdom holds 
fishes, both good and bad, but when it is drawn ashore the bad 
are thrown away. ‘So shall it be at the end of the world. 
“The angels shall go forth, and shall separate the wicked from 
“among the just, and shai] cast them into the furnace of fire.” 
(49. 50). But till then the wicked in the kingdom of 
heaven will be side by side with the just, the cockle will be 
suffered to grow up with the wheat, and the foolish virgins wiil 
sit with the wise. 

After this explicit declaration, who will be scandalized because 
Christ’s kingdom on earth is not composed exclusively of the 
just? Who, on that account, can refuse to acknowledge as the 
kingdom established by Christ the visible society which shows 
forbearance even to the erring in order to win them back again? 
Did not Jesus come to seek that which was lost? Did He not 
go in search of the lost sheep of the House of Israel? Did He 
not eat and drink with publicans and sinners? One of the 
twelve was the traitor; and yet Jesus, knowing this, suffered 
him to stay with Him. - He wills not the death of a sinner, but 
rather that he be converted and live. ‘To the barren fig-tree He 
allowed one, two, and three years grace to see whetler or no it 
would bear fruit. (Luke x1u. 6). 

13. The progress of Christ’s kingdom is similar to its 
commencement. It has the power to draw men both inwardly. 
and outwardly within the magnetic circle of its influence 
and action. To console His little flock, Christ often foretold 
in parables that it would grow both outwardly and inwardly. 
“The kingdom of heaven is like to leaven, which a woman 
“took and hid in three measures of meai, until the whole 
was leavened.” (Matth. xi. 33). To this inward trans 


55 THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 


formation, effected by the leaven of Christian doctrine and 
grace, there is a corresponding outward expression. ‘The 
mightier a force is, the more irresistible is the influence it 
exerts on all things with which it comes in contact. How 
beautifully this external growth is mirrored forth in the 
parable of the mustard seed! ‘‘The kingdom of heaven is 
“like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took and 
“sowed in his field, which indeed is the least of all seeds. 
“But when it is grown up it is greater than all herbs, and 
“becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come, and 
“dwell in the branches thereof.” (Matth. x11. 31. 32). So 
unpretentious, so insignificant was the kingdom founded by 
Jesus that the Scribes, when it was already in their midst, 
still asked when it was coming! But it will grow great, and 
be visibie from afar as a sign among the nations, so that 
men will come from the ends of the earth, seeking shelter 
under its branches. “And I, if I be lifted up from the 
“earth will draw all things to myself.” (John xi. 32). 

14. So mighty, indeed, is its force that men will give 
their most costly possessions in exchange for the kingdom of 
heaven. ‘The kingdom of heaven is like to a treasure hidden 
“in a field, which a man having found hideth, and for joy 
“thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath and buyeth that 
“field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like to a merchant 
“seexing good pearls, who when he had found one pearl 
“of great price, went his way, and sold all that he ha, 
‘and bought it.” (Matth. x11. 44-46). Such is the kingdom 
of God, which men are bidden to seek in the first place ; 
these are its treasures which neither rust nor moth can 
consume. How admirably this clear, simple, figurative language 
blends the inner and outer characteristics, the visible and 
the invisible properties of the kingdom of heaven! How full 
of vitality is the heavenly kingdom trom its insignificant 
beginning among the disciples, to its establishment among 
all peoples! The interior and the outer rim do not, indeed, 


THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 87 


always correspond; but this outcome of human frailty and 
sinfulness is tolerated, because man’s wickedness will never 
be able to overthrow God’s saving power ‘The fruits which 
the good seed lavishly brings forth, and the influence of 
grace and salutary doctrine tend to hasten the steps of th 
lagging members, and to teach them to prize the costly pearl 
hidden in the field. 

15. The Apostles, following their divine Master's instruc. 
tions, zealously pushed forward the work that He had Uegun and 
endowed with vital force. They went forth and preached 
the kingdom of God. ‘But when they had believed Philip 
“preaching of the kingdom of God, in the name of Jesus 
“Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” (Acts 
vill. 12). S. Paul preached the kingdcm of God at Ephesus 
(xix. 8), and took leave of the bishops at Ephesus in these 
words: ‘‘And now behold I know that all you, among whom 
“J have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see 
“my face no more.” (XX. 25). Even when imprisoned at 
Rome, be was “preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching 
“the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all 
“confidence, without prohibition.” (xxvii. 31). Again, he 
confirmed the disciples, and exhorted them to continue in 
the faith, and taught them that through many tribulations we 
must enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Acts X1v. 22). 

In the Apostolic Epistles the phrase “kingdom of God” 
holds a less conspicuous place. And yet the several elements 
of the idea may be discerned. First and foremost they point 
to heaven as our inheritance in the next world, to our Lord’s 
promise, to the reward that awaits those who fight the good 
fight on this earthly pilgrimage. S. Paul is overflowing with 
joy over the hope that is soon to be realized,—the near 
approach of the Parousia. <All with one concerted voice 
proclaim that God’s kingdom stands in sharp antagonism to 
this world’s ‘good and pleasures, and is mightier than its 
kingdoms. ‘The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, 


58 THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 


“but justice and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.” (Rom. 
XIV. 17). It is a kingdom of the Son of divine love, into 
which God has translated the faithful, by delivering them from 
the power of darkness. (Col. 1. 13). In propagating this 
kingdom the Apostle and his disciples spent their whole lives. 
(Iv. 13). ‘Therefore receiving an immovable kingdom, we 
“have grace; whereby let us serve, pleasing God, with fear 
“and ireverénce.” (Heb. x11. 28). Fear, too, 1s nécessary 
For full and undisturbed possession begins in death, and 
only faithful stewards wil! have part in this eternal kingdom. 
“For know ye this and understand that no fornicator, nor 
‘unclean, ‘nor covetous person (which is a serving of idols) 
“hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” 
“Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom 
“of God? Do not err. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, 
“nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, 
“nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor 
‘“extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God.”? “ Hath 
“not God chosen the poor in this world, rich in faith, and 
‘heirs of the kingdom which God hath promised to them 
‘that love Him?” (James 1. 5). ‘‘ Wherefore, brethren, 
“labour the more that by guod works you may make sure 
“your calling and election . . . For so an entrance shall 
‘‘be ministered to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom 
“of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” (II Pet. 1. 11). 
The Lord, says S, Paul, hath delivered me from every evil 
work, and will preserve me unto His heavenly kingdom, !0 
16. The notion of the kingdom of God, therefore, as set 
forth in the New Testament, contains two elements: God’s 
kingdom is a special gift and grace, or rather the sum toral 
of supernatural gifts, enabling man to obtain eternal salvation ; 
yet so that this gift finds its realization only in a visible 


Ephes. v. 5 I Cor. vi. 9; xv. s0. Gal. v.21. Rom. v. 27% villi,’ 27. I] “Time. 
ii, 12. 
to II Tim. iv. 18. Phil i, 23. Hebr. xii. 22. 


THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 59 


commonwealth. It may be true that “Jesus did not primarily 
“regard the kingdom of heaven as a commonwealth, but as 
“fan organism of heaven-born forces, which are at work among 
“men to subject them to God’s sovereign dominion ;”!! still 
it acts on mankind through the instrumentality of men, and 
in a certain sense finds its realization and outward expression 
in the members of a commonwealth. For not only does Jesus 
enumerate the conditions of admission into His kingdom, but, 
in contradistinction to strangers, that is the children of earthly 
kingdoms, He describes its members as sons of the Messias- 
King, who, because they are sons, are free from the payment 
of tribute. (Matth. xvi. 25). Granted that the kingdom of 
God is an idea, a means to an end to which all else must be 
subordinate, yet it cannot be denied that it is withal an idea 
that is already clothed with flesh and blood. As Christ is, so 
is His religion. It is the union of the divine and human. 
Therefore the kingdom of God, like Christianity, is something 
divine and human; it is the ideal and real, entwined in the 
visible society of believers. How could men be heirs to 
eternal life, unless things human could unite with and 
interact on things divine on earth; unless flesh and bleod 
could be sanctified and spiritualized ? 

17. Were not the disciples of Jesus the germ of this visible 
society? In accordance with Jewish usage they are called 
disc ples, and Jesus Himself is addressed as Rabbi, Rabboni, 
Lord, and Master. Jesus was not, indeed, the master of any 
particular school, as He had not been educated in any 
Rabbinical schools, but there was a close analogy between 
the relations of Jesus with His disciples, and the relations in 
which Jewish disciples, notably the disciples of the Baptist, 
Stood to their masters. In this way the first group of our 
Lord’s disciples grew up. Of them it is said that they believed 


mr Cremer, Worterbuch zum N.T. Schmidt, Die Kirche p.zr. Haupt, Studien und 
Kritiken 1387, p. 383. Késtlin, 75. 1888, p. 29. Edersheim, The Life of Jesus, 
London, 1884, y. 1. p. 270. (He collected the 11g passages on the point), 


60 THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 


in Jesus. (Johnit. 11). Others, indeed, believed, but Jesus 
would not trust Himself to them. (John 11. 24). When Jesus 
was baptizing in Judza, “there arose a question between 
“some of Jolin’s disciples and the Jews concerning purification. 
“And they came to John and said to him: Rabbi, he that 
“was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom thou gavest 
“testimony, behold he baptizeth, and all men come to him.” 
(il. 25.°26).. “He must increase but Tl must) decreasecam tne 
30), replied the Baptist. “He that believeth in the Son hath 
‘life everlasting; but he that believeth not the Son shall 
“not see life, but the wrath of God abideth in him.” (111. 36). 
And many in Galilee, Capharnaum, and Samaria believed. 

18. And now there had gathered round Jesus an inner 
and an outer circle of followers,—the disciples and the faithful. 
Christ, from whom grace and truth flow, was their visible head. 
And even among the disciples the twelve held a special rank. 
For after Jesus’ discourse in the Synagogue at Capharnaum 
it is related that many of His disciples thought: This is a hard 
saying, and who can hear it? ‘‘And after this many of His 
“disciples went back, and walked no more with Him. Then 
“Jesus said to the twelve: will you also go away? And 
“Simon Peter answered Him: “Lord to whom shall we go? 
“Thou hast the words of eternal life . . . Jesus answered 
“them: Have I not chosen you twelve; and one of you is 
“a devil.” (John vi. 67-69-71). 

About the election of the Apostles John says nothing, as 
he supposes the account in the Synoptists to be known. These 
relate how Jesus called two sets of brothers to follow Him, 
in order to make them fishers of men (Matth. 1v. 18 seq), 
and how He called Levi from the custom-house (1x. 9 seq). 
““And going up unto a mountain . . . He made that 
“twelve should be with Him, and that He might send them 
“to preach. And He gave them power to heal sickness and 
“to cast out devils.” (Mark 1. 12 seq). S.. Matthew in 
relating the Sermon on the Mount, draws a distinction 


THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 61 


between the “ multitudes” and the ‘‘ disciples’’ who ‘‘ came 
“unto Him ;”’ (v. 1); and in S. Luke, Christ’s followers 
are grouped in three sections: the twelve, the disciples, 
and the people.” (vi. 12 seq.) The number twelve recalls 
the twelve tribes of Israel. For the twelve were to be the 
twelve patriarchs of the new kingdom. To them are com- 
municated the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, and at. 
Christ’s second coming they are to sit on twelve thrones 
judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matth. xix. 28). At 
the close of a parable Jesus asked the twelve: ‘‘ Have ye 
“understood all these things? They say to Him, yea. “He 

‘said unto them : Therefore every scribe instructed in the 
¥ Beonedom of heaven is like toa man that is a householder, 

‘who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and 

pepld.)” .(Matth; x111.-52). 

The understanding of the disciples had not yet fully 
grasped the idea of the new kingdom. Even on the last 
journey to Jerusalem the sons of Zebedee ask to have seats 
assigned to them on Christ’s right and left in the new king- 
dom. Nay the disciples going to Emmaus say with see 
ing hearts: “We hoped that it was He that: should have 

‘redeemed Israel.’ (Luke xxiv. 21). Now Jesus com- 
bated, not the idea of God’s kingdom on earth, but the 
worldly and carnal notions entertained by the disciples. 
He admonished them not to aspire to secular lordship, but 
to do His will, and to be zealous in the work which He had 
undertaken for the sanctification and salvation of man- 
kind. ‘‘ You know that the princes of the Gentiles lord 
“it over them, and they that are the greater exercise 
“greater power upon them. It shall not be so among 
“you; but whosoever will be the greater among you, let 
“him be your minister. And he that will be first among 

“you shall be your servant, even as the Son of Man 
‘is not come to be ministered unto but to ug ssccr 
‘and to. give His life a redemption for many.’’ (Matth. 
Boxe! 25); 

19. The faithful together with the disciples form one so- 
ciety revolving round Christ asacentre. “ Every kingdom,” 


sé 


62 THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 


says our Lord, “divided against itself shall be made desolate, 
“and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. 
“And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; 
“how then shall his kingdom stand?” (Matth. xi. 25, 26). 
“ But if I, by the Spirit of God, cast out devils then is the king- 
“dom of God come unto you.” (v. 29). Shall this kingdom 
of God be more divided, less united than the kingdom of 
Satan? On the other hand, would the kingdom of Satan and 
of this world endure unless it presented, as it were, a serried 
phalanx against attack? ‘He that is not with me,” said Jesus, 
“is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth ” 
(Matth. x11. 30; Luke x1. 23); and He had previously said: 
“ He that is not against you is for you.” (Luke 1x. 50). The 
one is a consequence of the other. These words imply that the 
followers of Jesus form a scciety, towards which the world must 
assume some attitude. They are the answer to John’s com- 
plaint against the man who cast out devils, and yet followed 
not Jesus. All, says Jesus graciously, who are not evilly 
disposed, and who confess the name of Jesus, must be regarded 
as friends and feilow-wo1kers. 

20. The unity of this society attains its zenith in S. John’s 
Gospel. In the parable of the Good Shepherd, Jesus represents 
Himself as the Good Shepherd who enters by the’ door into the 
sheepfold. He knows His sheep, and they know His voice 
and follow Him. Jesus is also the door. By Him if any man 
enter in, he shall be saved. He will lead His sheep to good 
pastures and protect them against wolves. ‘‘ And other sheep 
“TJ have that ate not of this fold; them also I must bring, and 
“they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one 
“Shepherd.” (Luke x. 16). The imagery here employed 
denotes an inner as well as an outer companionship with Jesus. 
The Jewish believers, taken from the old Synagogue, are con- 
trasted with the misguided herd led by the Pharisees who are 
stigmatised as thieves and robbers. And thus the believers 
form a new flock, a new kingdom, whose visible head is Christ. 


THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 63 


But the believers, still to be recruited from the ranks of heathen- 
ism, will form one flock with the Jews and have one Shepherd. 
Christ will also be their Shepherd. But will it be in the same 
manner as He ruled the believers in Jerusalem? Or was the 
one visible flock to be sooner or later bereft of a visible lender 
-and head? 

Furthermore, in S. John’s Gospel, Jesus has more closely 
determined the position, the disciples were to ho!d in. God’s 
kingdom. He ate the lovefeast with them, and set them a 
pattern of humility by washing their feet. He consoled them 
for His: departure, warned them of the dangers that the world 
would strew in their path, and promised them assistance from 
the Father. He has depicted in glowing colours the cohesion 
of the disciples among themselves, and their union with Him- 
self, and the Father. His unity with the Father is the model 
for their unity in charity. In the parable of the vine He 
represents as indispensable for membership of the kingdom of 
sanctity and virtue, an inward union through the grace which 
streams from the fountiin-head. Unity in faith and charity is 
the cornerstone of our great high-priest’s prayer. “‘Holy Father, 
“keep them in Thy name whom Thou hast given me, that they 
“may be one, as we also are.” “ As Thou hast sent me into the 
‘world ; I also have sent them into the world. And for them 
“do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in 
“truth.” (John xvii. 11, 18, 19). And then Jesus turns His 
gaze from the twelve to all who shall believe in Him, and He 
begs His Father to keep them also in unity, “that they may all 
“be one as thou, Father, in me, and I in Thee; that they 
“also may be one in us ; that the world may believe that Thou 
Miiastssent me.” (xvii. 20, 21). 

21. Thus, then, the Kingdom of Heaven is the sum of 
heavenly gifts which Christ has won for believers, and it is like- 
wise the society of the Apostles and the faithful under the 
headship of Christ. By this society the gifts of grace are 
rendered operative and fruitful unto life eternal, that is, to the 


64 THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 


Kingdom of Heaven in the next world. This society, which 
has been commissioned to work out the destinies of the 
Kingdom of Heaven, has been specially named by its founder, 
the Church. (Matth. xvi. 18). 


CHAPTER III. 


HE CHURCH: ACCORDING TO 
SCRIPTURE; 


tr. The word “Church,” like the phrase “kingdom of 
heavén,” is pecaliar to S. Matthew’s Gospel, in which it occurs 
twice: Matth. xvi. 18 and xviuu. 17. Both passages contain 
instructions to the Twelve and are closely related. In the 
former our Lord says to Simon Peter: “Thou art Peter and 
“upon this rock I will build my Churc , and. the gates of 
“hell shall net prevail against it.” In the latter He says to 
the Apostles: “If he will not hear them (two or more witnesses), 
“tell the Church ; and if he will not hear the Church, let him 
“be to thee as the heathen and the publican.” And if we 
seek the word in its source, we shall not go far astray if we 
turn to the Old Testament. That S, Matthew’s Gospel is 
intimately connected with the Old Testament is undeniable. 
Quite independently of the question whether or no it was 
originally written in Hebrew, its contents and evident scope 
clearly establish this connection, which is quite sufficient to 
account for the fact that the word “Church” is used by S. 
Matthew, and by him alone. On the other hand, to contend 
that the word has been interpolated from the Acts or S. Paul’s 
Epistles is a most arbitrary proceeding, that derives no support 
from textual criticism. The word is simply the Greek and 
and Latin equivalent for the Hebrew Kahal which means 
literally convocation,! and it usually denoted the “Jewish 
~ a. Lev. iv. 13. Numbers xvi. 3; xx. 4. Deut. xviii. 16; xxiii. 1 seq; xxxi. 30: 

Josue viii. 35. Judges xxi 8 See Acts vii. 38. Exodus xix. 3- Hebr. ii. 12. 


D 


66 THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 


commune, assembly, congregation or meeting.” In using the 
word, therefore, to denote the commune, assembly, meeting, 
(synagogue) of the new Covenant, the new Theocracy, S. 
Matthew is following the analogy of the Old Testament. And, 
indeed, this was very natural, and harmonized with his purpose. 
He is at great pains to show that the Jewish people as such 
had been rejected, both in its rulers and in the mass, With 
all the more reason, therefore, he was bound to set forth the 
foundation of a new theocracy, a new world-wide common- 
wealth, the Church of Christ.* Again, it was quite impossible 
for a convert from Judaism to imagine a religion without an 
external visible community, or without a compact and definite 
organization. And hence S. Matthew has likewise chosen 


® It may be useful to bring out somewhat more fully and clearly this, in our judgment, 
extremely important point. In the Old Testament there are two words to express 
what we should call the (Mosaic) Church, namely Aahal— exkAnowd (from 
€xxaA<w to call out, convoke)—convocation ; anc Edah—TVVAVOY?) (from 
CUVAYELV, to bring together, to gather)—conventus, congreg&tio, assembly, 
and meeting. Now the two great features of the Mosaic Church were, firstly, 
that the people had been called in the mest signal manner out of Egypt by God 
Himself, and secondly, that they were made into a nation, a people, a common- 
wealth, a civil and religious organic body, not by man, but by God. They were 
the called of God (pur excellence), and God’s own family or state (Theocracy). 
Hence the two words serve admirably to express one or the other of these two 
characteristic features. Moreover, tle time when these two facts in their history 
would come home to them most vividly, would be when they were gathered 
together round the tabernacle (real presence of God) in solemn worship; and 
hence, the two words would especially apply to that assembly and meetings 
From this we conclude that, by long usage, they had acquired a very definite 
meaning, and were calculated to raise a very definite picture in the mind of every 
Jew, who used them or heard them. If this be duly bozne in mind, it will be 
easier to appreciate the vast significance of the words our Lord addressed to 
St. Peter in M. xvi. 18., and to realize the impresssion they must have produced in 
the minds of the twelve. To them it must have been one of the most momentous 
utterances conceivable, scarcely second to S. Peter’s wonderful confession. That. 
very moment, in which they heard and recognized that they stood in the presence 
of the Son of the living God, was chosen by Him to tell them: Upon this rock 

I shall build #zy Kahal. What else could they understand but that he who spoke 
was both Moses and Jehova in one, for no one else could speak thus, because 

_ their old Kahal was the Kahal of Moses indeed, but really of Jehova. 

The reader will also notice that in the next verse S. Matthew ecntinues: To thee 


I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, The English word Church, like the 
German Airche, Kirk, is derived from the Greek K Uplak7}—Dominica. (Tr.) 


THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE 67 


those parables concerning the kinydom of heaven, which re- 
present it as a visible society composed of good and bad, and 
predict its outward expansion. He treats of “Church polity 
and discipline,” lays down, as it were, “the rudiments of 
ecclesiastical law,” and shows us Jesus as legislating for the 
kingdom that He bequeathed to His disciples. 

2. Now it is precisely with reference to organization that S. 
Matthew uses the word ‘ Church.’ Nay, the very steps and 
gradations of organization are discernible in both passages, 
The first, that concerning Peter, speaks for itself. The figure is 
taken from a house, firmly built on a rock, which defies the 
winds ard the storm. Thus the Church is a building, set on a 
visible rock, Peter, and composed of visible stones, the Apostles 
- and the faithful. It is, as it were, a tower whose foot spurns back 
the ocean’s roaring tides. Asa city on a hill is everywhere 
visible, and offers shelter to all, so the Church built on Peter as 
a firm foundation, protects and saves the faithful throughout the 
world. Hence in trying to form an accurate notion of the 
Church, we must start from this very passage in which the word 
occurs for the first time, and with a well-defined meaning, 
“Matthew xvr. 18, not only gave rise to the ideas of Rome’s 
“primacy, but it also caused the idea of the Church to take 
“rank among the articles of the Apostles’ Creed. Thus it 
“is in every sense, a sedes doctrine of Catholicism.’2 Is this, 
perchance the reason why modern critics give an unfavourable 
verdict on the passage? Those who would maintain that 
Christ founded what they call a “ religious world-wide society, 
without any theocratic ordinances, sacrifice and priesthood,” 
are forced to Geny that this passage, which pre-supposes a more 
or less “advanced state of social organization,” contains the 
genuine words of Our Lord. But then there are all the other 
passages, embodying the words addressed to the Apostl-s and 
promising the assistance of the Holy Ghost These, surely, are 


a: Holtzman, Zeitschrift fiir wissen. Theologie, 1878 p. 113. Schenkel, Bibel-Le ricon, 
IL. 3770 


68 THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 


the genuine words of Christ, and if so, then it must be admitted 
that “the external organization was, at all events, the work of 
“the creative power of His divine Spirit ever present and active 
“ first among his disciples, afterwards among the community at 
“large.” 

The other passage, in S. Matthew xvi. 17, has the advantage 
of distinctly bringing out the connection between the private 
and public character of the members of the community. 
Following up the command to obey the Church as the highest 
tribunal, Christ adds this assurance: “Amen I say to you, 
“ whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in 
“heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be 
“Joosed also in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you 
“ shall consent upon earth, concerning anything whatsoever they 
“shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father Who is in 
‘heaven. For where there are two or three gathered together 
“in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (18-20). 
What the passage lays stress on, is the power given to the 
Apostles, and the Divine and absolute sanction of its exercise. 
This forbids us to interpret it to mean merely that the com- 
munity acted through its chosen delegates, or that the Apostles 
executed the mandate of the people. For not only are these 
words calculated, as the Old Catholic Langen thinks, to give 
plausibility to the mistaken notion that Church means directly 
the hierarchy,®? but we contend that apart from this con-ider- 
ation, the passage, taken as a whole and in this context, obliges 
us to think of the Church as connected with the Apostles. 
Only by disregarding the context, is it possible to wrench the 
passage and interpret in the interest of opposition to the 
hierarchy, as happened at Bale and Constance. Even so 
the Catholic idea of the Church is contained therein, and the 
further question would be one not of the Church in itself, but 
of the reiation of the Apostles to the whole Church. But, asa 


3 Langen, Das Vaticanische Dogma von dem Universal-Episcopat und der Unjehl- 
barkeit des Papstes. WII. Part. Bonn. 1873, p. 84. 


THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 69 


matter of fact, the context definitely singles out the Apostles as 
men in authority, invested with the judicial office. For this 
reason S. Chrysostom understands by the “Church” the 
“presidents,” and S. Thomas the prelates. He that heard not 
the Apostles in the Church is as one cast out of the Church, 
excommunicated. 

We grant indeed that the name “ Apostle” is not used, nor 
do we deny that afterwards the faithful of the Church generally, 
when assembled in prayer, are assured of Christ’s presence. 
But the “you” in v. 18 must be understood of the Apostles, 
net of the men offended against, nor of the community ; and 
this for two reasons. Firstly, they are addressed in the plural, 
while in the previous part of the discourse, which only stated 
general propositions in the concrete, the singular form is used ; 
secondly, the “ di-ciples ” in v. 1 are clearly the “twelve,” who 
were our Lord’s constant companions, and formed the founda- 
tion of the community. They are represented as having power. 
Nor can it be concluded from v. 19 that the Apostles are 
regarded in v. 18 merely as brothers among brotheis, and not 
according to their calling and office. The connection, indeed, 
between the words in versés 19-20 and the preceding passage is 
not so clear and obvious; still there is a connecting link, a com- 
mon thought underlying both. The preceding passage lays 
stress upon the difference between Auwd/ic and private correction, 
and their respective effects upon the offender. ‘Tiien our Lord 
goes on to emphasize the importance and value of public 
prayer,—-the prayer of those who are knitted into one brother- 
hood by the common bond of faith and love. The bond of 
faith and love, S. John tells us, must unite the faithful with one 
another and with Christ. This union, which was first effected 
in Christ and the Apostles, is at once the pattern and the cause 
of the union subsisting between the Apostles and the faithful ; 
and both, in turn, are moulded on the union of the Father and 
the Son. Hence common prayer is possible to none but those 


4 S. Th. ii if,; q. 33. a.8. J Cant. exp. alt.c. i. 


7° THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE, 


who are welded into this brotherhood, the Church, and who. 
confess, as they are here bidden, the power inherent in the. 
Apostles of binding and loosing. In other words a community 
presupposes an organization instituted by Christ.* Such is the 
explanation given by S. Cyprian.> He, too, had to defend it. 
against the thrusts of heretics and schismatics. We must not, 
he says, take the text apart from the context. If two of you, it 
ic said, shall consent upon earth; Christ, therefore, puts unity in 
the first place. But how can the man who is at variance with. 
the whole Church and the brotherhood, be in agreement with 
any one? How can two or three be gathered together 7 the. 
name of Jesus who are known to be divided from Christ and His 
Gospel ? ft 

This, then, is the passage to which Gallicans old and new 
never weary of appealing. So, in like manner, Protestant. 
controversialists boast that this passage enshrines the “great: 
“promise, which, in the teeth of all hierarchical pretensions, 
“declares that when two or three are gathered together in 
“ Christs? name there is He in the midst of them.” According 
to it, they say, the Church or ‘“‘congregation” was to be founded 
by the missionary labours of the Apostles, but it was to govern. 
itself by virtue of Christ who abides in spirit in the midst of 


sg. De Unit Eccl, c. 12. 


® The connection between verse 19 and the preceding verses might, perhaps, be stated in 
a more simple and natural way, thus: in verse 17 it is said that if the offender will 
not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican. This is, 
of course, a terrible punishment. Why? because whatever you bind on earth 
is also bound 7” heaven (v. 18), and whatever you ask as members of one brother- 
nood, will be granted ; consequently separation from the brotherhood means that 
prayer is sterile, the fountain of grace dried up (v. 19). This passage, therefore, as 
the author argues, implies all along that the Church is a living organism, of which 
the Apostles are an essential part; and they certainly were endowed with 
Hierarchical power. (Tr.) 


¢ It is clear that the argument of S. Cyprian, to have any force at all, must needs 
exclude certain favourite maxims of later days such as: that there can be faith and 
revealed truth independently of an external, visible and living organisation ; that 
it can be found in more than one organisation; that the community (Chuich 
is to be recognized and judged by the faith and not vice-versa; that the one living 
community cin lose the true faith. Such maxims never occured to S. Cyprian, 
and, excepting the last, probably never entered the mind of his opponents, The 
fallibility of the Church is, of course. a necessary postulate of separation. (Tr.) 


THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 7t 


His children. But in this place there is no question whatever 
of the Apostles founding the Church in their capacity of 
missionaries. Is it not clearly a question of discipline, of the 
unity and authority of the Church? ‘The other passage speaks 
of the foundation of the Church, but not of a ‘‘congregation ;” 
and every attempt to interpret it in this manner is foredoomed 
to failure. We are, therefore, fully entitled to put: the same 
meaning on the same word in both passages, sinc2 both speak 
of the same authority. Nor, again, can it be objected that 
this authority is cancelled by the promise that follows (v. 19); 
for then its being put forward with such emphasis in verses 
37-18 would be utterly incomprehensible. 

3. ‘The other evangelists do not use the word ‘ Church,” 
although Mark and Luke record Peter’s confession (vil 27; 
Ix. 18). ,External circumstances supply the reason why. It 
was not till late, we observe, and then only before His disciples, 
that Jesus spoke of the Church He was to found as the new 
theocracy, lest, had it been prematurely divulged, it might 
confirm the Jews in their false Messianic hopes. And still 
greater caution was required in the evangelists who wrote for 
Gentile Christians. In their accounts of the kingdom of God, 
they avoided, as we have seen, Matthew’s somewhat Jewish 
phrase ‘kingdom of heaven.” That such was their aim and 
object is clear from S. John, who not only lays special stress 
throughout his Gospel on the spiritual character of the kingdom 
of Jesus, but he has retained the very words in which Jesus, 
when before Pilate, declared it to be such. (vir. 36). 

- But when we come more closely to examine the passages 
in which the last three Gospe!s speak of the kingdom of God, 
whether in its spiritual or in its outward aspect, it is easy to 
see that they apply. to the Church as an external organized 
society of believers who are in quest of eternal life. This 
is but natural. For the idea of the Church sets out, indeed, 


6. Hase, Polemzk p. 38. Beyschlag, Riehms Bibl. Worterbuch i. 71. On Gerson, 
Pierre d’Ailly and others see Schwane, ili. 556, 561, 569 seq. 


i THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 


from external union, such as was manifested in the Old 
Testament by sacrifice and prayer, legislation and priesthood, 
but it does not stop there, because the end of this union is 
essentially spiritual, namely, the realization of the kingdom of 
God on earth by uniting the society to God by charity, and 
the faithful with one another in faith, sacrifice and prayer. 
The distinction between the kingdom of God and the Church 
does not, as Ritschl will have it, consist in this that the former 
is internal, the latter external, one appertaining to the domain 
of morality, the other to that of worship; for such a distinction 
between outward and inward is unknown to the New Testament.? 
On the contrary, whatever is said in the Gospels of the kingdom 
of God, must also be true of the Church. 

4. Moreover theve are several incidents recorded in S. 
John’s Gospel which have ¢:ways been applied by the allegorical 
school to the foundation of the Church, and for this reason 
cannot be passed over in silence. In the first place John 
alone gives the triple inscription on the Cross (x1x 20), for 
Luke xxut. 38 [Vulg.] is a gloss on the text. John undoubtedly 
meant to convey the tdea that Divine Providence had, by 
this telling circumstance, given expression to the universality of 
the Church and of the work of redemption. For, Hebrew, 
as S. Augustine remarks, was the language of the Jews who 
gloried in the Law; Greek was the language of those who 
boasted of worldly wisdom, and Lati:n of the Romans, who 
were masters of the wor'd. The three forces were to be pressed 
into the service of the Christian Church. From Judaism there 
came forth Christ and His foundation, the Church. The. 
universal language of the Greeks made it possible to preach 
the Gospel everywhere, and the Roman empire supplied the 
external basis for the universal Christian Church. It was from 
‘the cross that these future events cast their shadow. And so 
we may say with Rupert of Deutz that the inscription was 
dictated by the Holy Ghost in one sense and written by Pilate 


g. See Késtlin, Studien und Kritiken, 1883, p. 25. 


THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE, 73 


in another. Who would have thought at that moment that 
the work of the Crucified was to destroy the Jews, and to 
subdue the Greco-Roman empire with its much vaunted 
philosophy and its overwhelming power? 

John, again, is the only one to record that the garment of 
Christ was without seam, woven from the top throughout. (xix. 
23). The soldiers who kept watch, whose perquisites the 
garments of the crucified were, spoke thus among themselves : 
“Let us not cut it, but let us cast lots for it whose it shall be.” 
In this S. John sees the fulfilment of that word in scripture: 
“They have: parted my garments among them, and upon my 
vesture they have cast lots.” (Ps. xx1. [xxu.] 19). The 
explanation of the Fathers and Theologians, though allegorical, 
is very telling.S ‘They see in the seamless garment of Christ a 
figure of the Church’s unity. To preserve this intact has ever 
been the most sacred duty of the faithful and of the bishops. 
“We will not cut it,’ was the reminder the Fathers gave to 
heretics, warning them not to mangle the mother who had 
nurtured them. 

Another incident related by John about the Mother of Jesus 
as she stood at the foot of the Cross also admits of application 
to the Church. “When Jesus therefore had seen His mother 
‘and the disciple standing, whom He loved, He saith to His 
“mother: Woman, behold thy son. After that He saith to the 
“disciple: Behold thy mother.” (x1x. 26), And the Lvangelist 
adds: ‘‘ And from that hour the disciple took her to his own.” 
By the last words the Evangelist clearly indicated what was the 
immediate purpose of our Lord’s words. How then, it will be 
asked, can the text be applied to the Church ? The application 
has to be sought not so much in the relation of Mary to John 
as mother and son, as in the relation in which she stood to 
Christ, the Redeemer ; a relation which impaited to her position 
the character of universality. §, Ambrose,? however, the only 


8 Cyprian, De Un.c.7. Jerome, £4. 1g ad Dam. Augustine, Sev. 265, 7. Gregory 
the Great, £4, vit. g. Felix 1H. Ep. /. 3 {ad Jen.) See also Schwane, IT. 833. 
g See Schanz, Commnentar 2u Johannes, p. 558. Scheeben, Dogmatik 11. 605. 


74 THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 


one among the Fathers who dilates upon this passage, was 
stopped short of this application by Ps. Lxxxvu. 5. That 
Mary, the mother of Christ, standing by the Cross, had a 
share in the work of redemption, is a doctrine that has been 
held since the days of Irenzeus. But it was not till later that 
Theologians began to see it expressed in these words of Christ 
given by S. John. After scanning the words more closely they 
argued, and rightly so, that the fact of John taking Mary unto 
his own, and providing for her temporal needs, will indeed 
explain the words: ‘‘Son, behold thy mother,” but not the 
words: ‘Woman, behold thy son.” The latter words, there- 
fore, show that by son was meant the church of all the 
redeemed which was placed under her maternal protection. 
Finally, the story of the piercing of the side of Jesus also 
belongs to this group. In order to make sure that death had 
ensued, one of the soldiers pierced the side of the Crucified 
with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water. 
(x1xX. 34). John specially strengthens the force of his testimony 
as an eyewitness, because he knew that the fact he had men- 
tioned was the fulfilment of a prophecy. [Zach. xu. 10]. But, 
in searching for the deeper reason and meaning of this incident, 
the Fathers generally hold that it signified the foundation of 
the Church 3 and they go on to compare it with the creation of 
Eve from the side of the sleeping Adam, and the opening of the 
door in the ark through which the animals came forth. The 
Christian, they say, lives by water and blood: by the one he is 
born a.ain, by the other nourished. They are the gates of life. 
Hence the side of Christ was opened, to Jet water and blood, 
that is, the Sacraments of the Church, flow forth, whereby she 
becomes the fertile mother of many children. ‘Thus as the 
mother of the living was formed from the rib of the sleeping 
Adam, so from the side of the Crucified, the second Adam, 
has issued the Church from which streams of life and grace 
are ever flowing to those who are spiritually united to Christ,!0 


19 See S. Thomas, ili. q. 64, a Ge 


THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 75 


So far we have been dealing with the notion of the Church 
according to the Gospels. 

5. By turning to the Acts of the Apostles we shall be 
enavled to attain a still clearer and further notion of the 
Church. For it is here that we get a real insight ito the 
formation and growth of the new community, the nature and 
development of her constitution as well as her marvellous 
spiritual energy and power. The dedication, so to speak, of 
the Church took place on the day of Pentecost. The Holy 
Ghost descended upon the house in which all the disciples 
were assembled, and rested on each one. The noise from 
heaven as of a mighty wind, and the fiery tongues, suggest a 
parallel with the thunder and lightning when God gave the 
Law on Mount Sinai. But there is a difference. For, the 
Spirit speaking in the Apostles is the Spirit promised for the 
new kingdom by the prophets, setting His seal to the new 
cevenant: a covenant not of the letter but of the Spirit. 
Though the name Church be wanting, the thing itself stands 
clearly before our eyes. Those means of salvation 


at once 
external signs of the visible community, and inner medicine for 
the soul—which Jesus had appointed, were now applied aud 
took their full effect The words of the sacred text give a 
glowing description of what was taking place; those who 
received the word were baptized, and there were “added in that 
“day about three thousand souls. And they were persevering 
“in the doctrine of the Apostles, and in the commnnication ot 
“the breaking of bread, and in prayers.” (Acts 11. 41. 42).* 


* This sketch of the new community is evidently taken at the moment when it was 
assembled for divine worship. It purports to place before us the new Kakal 
{taking the word in its narrower application], and its new divine service consisting 
in three main portions, namely: (1) the doctrine of the Apostles [Sermon]; 
(2) the communication of the breaking of the bread (Eucharistic sacrifice and 
sacrament]; (3) prayers [psalms, hymns, spiritual canticles, Col. m1. 16; suppli- 
cations, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings, 1. Tim. u. 1}. But at the 
same time the words of the text go far beyond that immediate scope. ‘They 
also give, as the author argues, an insight into the organic character of the 
new community. Faith received at the hands of divine messengers [evidently 
asummary faith], and baptism dispensed by the same, are conditions of admission; 
Perseverance in the doctrine [continuous teaching] of the Apostles is an obligation 
resulting from the admissioa. The Eucharist and common liturgica! prayer 


76 THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE, 


6. Henceforward the word ‘‘Church” is more frequently 
met with, and is applied both to the Christian community asa 
whole (universal church), and to each particular community. 
In other words, the name is given to the whole community, and 
to each of its parts. After recounting the punishment inflicted 
on Ananias and Saphira, the sacred writer continues: ‘ And 
“there came great fear upon the whole Churca, and upon all 
that heard these things.” (Acts v. 11). The persecution of 
the faithful is called a ‘persecution against the Church.” (vl. 
1). ‘Saul made havoc of the Church, entering in from house 
“to house, and dragging away men and women committed 
“them to prison.” (vul. 3). “The church that was at 
“Jerusalem . . . sent Barnabas as far as Antioch.” 
(x1. 22). “Herod the king stretched forth his hands to 
‘afflict some of the Church.” (xi. 1). “ Peter therefore was 
“kept in prizen. But preyer was made without ceasing by the 
Church unto God for him.” (xu. §). Saul and Barnabas 
tarried in the Church at Antioch a whole year, and taught a 
great multitude. (x1. 26). \Vhen they returned from their 
missionary tour they assembled the Church, and related what 
great things God had done with them. (xIv. 27). They were 
sent as ambassadors of the Church to Jerusalem (xv. 2. 3), and 
when they were come, “they were received by the Church and 
“by the Apostles and ancients.” (xv. 4). The decree of the 


is the visible sign and seal of their internal unity with one another and with 
God. ‘These, then, are the organic bonds thet linked them to the Apostolic 
body, which was already in. existence as a fu and perfect church. Hence the 
very expressive words of the text: They were added [afposite, mporerivnray | 
they were taken up into the previously existing living organism, they were 
absorbed and assimilated to it. Their accession increased the size and bulk of 
the Church, but made no change in her form and constutution. The process 
by which those men were made Christians was an organic process, a parental 
action; they were children, not merely pupils. (I Cor. 1v. 15; Phil. 10), It is 
of the utmost importance, from an apologetic point of view, to insist on this 
fundamental fact, which must needs become a law for all times. ‘lhe manner 
and method of making Christiaus being omce organic, must ever remain so, or 
to use the language of German Theologians: the formal principle (Das Formal- 
Princip) by which men become believers and members of Christ's Church, can 
never change}; it must be the same to-day as it was when the first vicar ef Crist 
began to set the first living stones upon himself as the firm and unsbaken reuk, 
when the first chief shepherd opened the door of the fold to his sheep. Tr. 


> ae oa 


THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCKIPTURE,. 77 


Apostolic Council is descriled as a decree of the “ Apostles 
“and ancients with the whole Church.” (xv. 22; xvi. 4). 
Paul visited the churches in Syria and Cilicia. (xv. 41 3 XVIIL 
22). In one place, however [x1x. 32. 41], the word is used of 
an ordinary assembly of people. 

From this it is easy to see how the idea of the Church, 
formed after the analogy and on the model of the Old Testa- 
ment, was first realized in one individual, then in two, and 
three, and so forth. It thus was at first an individual concept ; 
but, as time went or and communities arose in various towns, 
it became a general or universal* concept. Not indeed as if 
the Church as a whole meant no more than a conglomerate of 
particular churches, each one complete in itself and independent 
of others, though resembling them; on the contrary, they are 
all sprung from one stock, daughters of the same mother, 
boughs from the sa‘me trunk. The Church is a divine institution 
which finds its #xpression in all those who believe [or, in the 
words of the Acts, who are added to the existing circle]. 
But the circle of the faithful is, at first, small, and only 
gradually does it enlarge itself by admitting new peoples and 
new places. As long as there were faithful only in Jerusalem, 
they constituted the whole church. They are called by various 
names, the faithful, the disciples, the multitude of the believers, 


* According to the strict rules of logic, and, indeed, according to the explanation 
which the author himself immediately gives, the term Church, as used in the 
Acts, is in no way a general or universal term. For it is essential to a universal 
term, that it should apply to a number of individuals in exactly the same sense 
and meaning, [wnivoce pluribus competit) so that each individuai realizes the same 
full meaning of the word. Now this is precisely what the author tries to exclude 
by his argument and rightly so, because tle term Church, taken frem the O. T., 
means the new Kahal, the new divine commonwealth. But, frum the very nature 
of things, if it be a divine organization, it is, and must ever remain one 
individual being or object [es tndsviduum], no matter how many peoples and 
places it may embrace. It was the Reformers of the XVI century who made 
the word Church an universal term. In order to retain the ancient creed 
**] believe in one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,” they were obliged to 
stare the theory of an invisible church, which is realised in the many and various 
individual and mutually opposed communions. This theory has taken such root in 
the Protestant mind, that it has become the source of interminable confusion 
in our own days, the word Church being now the veritable Babel of the X1X 
century; every one using it, but no one daring to define it. Yet the matter 
if viewed historically, is perfectly simple and quite in harmony with the rules 


78 THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 


the disciples of the Lord, the brethren, the Apostles and 
ancients and brethren. These taken together were the Church 
of Christ, the Christian Kahal or community. But, before 
long, new portions were added, and formed, after the manner 
of Jerusalem, into local communities, and these, too, were 
called not indeed the Church simply, but with a limitation, 
the Church at Antioch, Iconium, Ephesus, and so forth. 
Thus the word came to be used of the new community as 
a whole and of each of its parts. So, for instance, whi e in 
Acts 1x. 1 the Christians are called the ‘disciples of the Lord,’ 
and in 1x. 26 simply ‘the disciples’? (whom Saul after his 
conversion essayed to join in Jerusalem), and in 1x, 30 ‘the 
brethren,’ in 1x. 31 for the first time the word Church is used 
of all the existing communities [particular churches]: “Now 
“the Church had peace throughout all Judeea and Galilee 
‘‘and Samaria, and was edified, walking in the fear of the 
‘Lord, and was filled with the consolation of the Holy 
beaitosty ‘a(x 3 1), 

In the sane chapter the faithful are also designated ‘ Saints,’ 
This phrase, too, like ‘disciples’ and ‘brethren,’ was borrowed 
from Jewish usage. Just as the name ‘Saints’ was assigned 
to the Jews in the Old Testament because, being God’s chosen 
people and separated from the heathen, they enjoyed God’s 
protection and led lives pleasing in his sight (Daniel vil. 18, 22), 
so Christians applied the expression to themselves, because 
God had chosen them from out of the world (John xvi. 14. 16), 


of human language. The word Church in itself is a collective term, like family, 
army, state, and means a divinely organized commonwealth. The object then 
to which it is applied, is one individual organisin such as that which existed 
in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost; and to this organism it will ever apply, 
no matter Low large or small it may be. It can only grow and increase in one 
way. Like a state, which is also a moral organism, it grows by drawing new | 
places aid new nations within its ow1 organic lite. These become part and 
parcel of the state, and, by a well-known metaphor (Jars pro toto), they may 
share in the name of the stute So for instanc2, if the Commonwealth of Cromwell 
were first established in London and then gradually spread to the Provinces, 
people would be quite justified in calling the new municipal government of the 
various towns the Commonwealth. It is precisely in the same sense that Scripture 
speaks of the church at Antioch, Ephesus, and elsewhere. Any other acceptation 
of the word Church, whatever else it may be, is not historical. Tr. 


THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 79 


in order that, filled with the Holy Ghost, they might merit 
eternal life by leading holy lives. But as the Jews, God’s 
people and family, or in the language of Scripture, the Son 
of God, formed a divine commonwealth or Theocracy, so 
also. Christians, the new Israel, formed a new community, 
the Church. 

7- But the Asts of the Apostles discloses a still deeper 
view int. the nature of the Church. Besides recording the 
prominent position held by the Apostles in all the Churches, 
it gives us a glimpse into the way in which S. Paul, by 
God’s command, organized the Gentile Christian Churches. 
It relates how he sent from Miletus to Ephesus and summoned 
the “ancients of the Church” (xx. 17), and how in a stirring 
farewell address he admonished them in these words: ‘Take 
‘heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy 
“Ghost hath placed you bishops to rule ¢he Church of God, 
“which He hath purchased with His own bloood.” (xx. 28). 
Although these were only the ancients set over the Church of 
Ephesus, still all portions of the Church of God, and conse- 
quently.the whole Church, were included in the same categ.ry. 
The several Churches together form the Church of Christ, 
that was purchased by the plood of Jesus and is guided by 
the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit works organically, that 
is, through the bishops and ancients of the several Churches, 
and they must render an account to God of the manner in 
which they have discharged their duties as pastors and teachers. 
Bishops and those committed to their charge stand in the 
same relation to one another as the Apostles and the faithful ; 
they form one Church, the teaching and the listening Church 
[Zeclesia docens et discens}. Even through the complaints 
lodged by the Jews against the ‘‘sects” of Christians there 
runs the conviction that they are viewing it as a compact and 
united society, that was threatening the very existence of the 
Synagogue. ‘Thus runs their complaint to the governor against 
Paul: ‘‘ We have found this to be a pestilent man, and raising 


80 THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 


sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and author 
“of the sedition of the sect of the Nazarenes, who also hath 
“gone about to profane the temple.” (xxIv. 25. 26). 

8. §S. Paul’s writings are of special interest in this question. 
It was not he, as we have seen, who first originated the idea or 
term Church. He found it in existence. Speaking of his 
antecedent career, he says, with a deep feeling of sorrow, 
that he persecuted the Church of God beyond measure. 
(I Cor. xv. 9; Gal. 1. 13). But as if to atone for his sin, he 
seems not only to have laboured more than the others for 
the Church, but also to have made her the subject of his 
special study. He has, so to speak, applied to her the electric 
search-light of his wonderfully clear and keen vision, setting 
forth the glories of her beauty and strength, unlocking the 
riches of truth and grace that are contained in her name, 
In order that we may clearly apprehend his statements, it 
will be well to consider in advance certain phrases that occur 
in his Catholic epistles. It will be seen that he touches on 
most of the elements, whether internal or external, spiritual 
or material, that go to make up the idea of the Church. 

We are, of course, quite aware that S. Paul’s words on the 
Church, apply directly to the particular church to which an 
epistle is addressed. Natuzally it is the Church, as embodying 
a particular community in each place, that comes chiefly into 
prominence. But even so, it is most important to know in 
what light he regards it and how he speaks of it. Now he 
views the particular Church not merely as a gathering of the 
faithful in one place, but as part of a drotherhvod, a community 
of Saints, of men sanctified and called by Christ Jesus [vocati 
electi, sanctificati, fratres|. Thus in the first Epistle to the 
Corinthians he says: ‘‘To the Church of God that is at 
“Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called 
“to be Saints, with all that invoke the name of our Lord Jesus 
‘Christ in every place of theirs and ours.” Again, in the 
address of the second Epistle he says: ‘‘to the Church of God, 


THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. St 


“that is at Corinth, zt all the Satnts that are in Achaia,” 
In the Epistle to the Galatians he thus begins: “Paul, an 
“Apostle . . . and all the brethren who are with me, to 
“the chuiches of Galatia.” Or again, leaving out the word 
Church, as in the [pistle to the Romans and Ephesians, he 
addresses “‘all that are at Rome the beloved of God, called to 
“be Saints,” or, as in the’ Epistle to the Philippians, “all 
“the Saints in Christ Jesus, who are at Philippi, with the 
*‘bishops and deacons.” In the body of the Epistles the 
term Church frequently occurs with reference to a particular 
Church." Again, a particular Church is sometimes named 
after the house in which the community met.’ That the faithful 
met in one and the same place is implied in I Cor. xiv. 23 
(x1x. 35). Nevertheless, in the eyes of S. Paul, each and all 
these particular churches are God’s possession!® like the old 
theocracy. They are but the cne Church that is to be in 
every place, of which the Apostles are the shepherds and 
teachers.!* He who persecutes any one of these, persecutes 
the Church of God, which is the pillar and the ground of 
stuth, and God’s true dwelling-place among men. We cannot 
do better than conclude this paragraph with the words of a 
modern writer: ‘‘ Here we find, in the first place, the idea 
“or principle of tradition. Next, side by side with the ordinary 
** Pauline teaching (II ‘Tim. 4. 19) that the Church is a society 
“of the elect, we see the visible Church as a community of 
“‘so0d and bad (v. 20). Again we see the Church as a 
“teaching authority, as an intermediary organ between Christ 
mde each believer 9... . “Hinally, .wechave: the jecc/esta 
eqisroziis-set- forth as an. article of faith, ~. «.°..: Whats 
“this but Cathvlicism in a nutshell?” 


gre Romans. Xxvie-4. 5° 71 Cor.iv. 17: 3¢vr-045/Col. rv. 163) [Cor vite 175 11_Cer 
ULDMAT Gale T Obes XTn 2Gly Cran 1.22. 


12 Romans xvi. 5; I Cor. xvi. 193 Col. Iv. 15; Philemon 2. 
z3 I Cor. xi. 22: See Numbers xvi. 33. XX. 4, 


meee C ota) X11. 26 5. Esphes, 3. )22 3. Ill. 103 \V.. 2a.seq. 27. 29: 325 Philip. 111., 6° 
Colt: 18. 124: 


82 THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 


9. It ts a little surprising that the writers of the Catholi¢ 
Epistles have used the word but seldom (James v. 143 
III John 1x. 10). _ Their dedications, when there are such, 
are more general, as is probably also the case in the second 
and third Epistles of S. John. “The lady Elect,” in the 
second Epistle, is interpreted by S. Jerome to mean the 
Church Elect. “The Church that is in Babylon, elected 
“together with you” (I Peter v. 13) can only be the community 
with which Peter was staying. The word “Church” is added 
in the Peschittho, Vulgate, and Sinaitic Codex. As to the 
expression synagogue, used by S. James (11. 2), in the sense 
of assembly or place of assembly, it is a disputed point among 
commentators whether it belongs to an earlier or later period. 
That the Epistle itself belongs to a later period admits of no 
doubt, for it is clearly based upon the Epistle to the Romans. 
As, moreover, the ‘‘twelve tribes which are scattered abroad,” to 
which the Epistle is addressed, cannot mean the old Israel; 
so the expression ‘‘synagogue” only proves that it was intended 
for Jewish Christians; and this proof is clenched ty its 
connection with S. Matthew’s Gospel. In Hebr. x. 2s the 
word éricuvaywyy, collectio, assembly, also occurs; but it is 
used in contrast to the Jewish synagogue, and denotes the 
assembly of believers. (II Thess. 11.1). Epiphanius twits the 
Ebionites with calling their assembly a synagogue instead of 
a church.!®6 Theophilus treasures the “synagogues, which are 
called ‘“‘holy churches” as God’s bountiful gift to sinful man.!? 
In sharp antithesis to this is the Jewish “synagogue of Satan,” 
mentioned by the writer of the Apocalypse, who wrote seven 
letters to the churches of Asia, to the “ Angel of the Church,” 
announcing the revelation that God had made to him in secret. 
For the rest, James himself gives the best explanation when 
he exhorts the faithful to call in the priests of the church to 
pray over the sick and anoint them with oil. 


16 Haer. xxx. 18, Pseudo-Ignat. ad Polyc. iv. a 
17 Ad Autol. ii. 14. 


THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 83 


io. In the foregoing pages we have briefly surveyed the 
usage to which the word church is subjected in the writings of 
the New Testament. We now proceed to set forth the more 
minute explanations supplied by the same writings, especially 
by the Pauline Epistles, concerning the nature and character of 
the Christian Church. And in the first place, that the Church 
was a positive institution, founded by Christ, and by Him 
alone, is sufficiently indicated in the words: Church of God, of 
the Lord. For it is self-evident to all Christians that Christ 
alone is the corner-stone and foundation of the Church. He 
is the object as well as the cause of faith. He is the source of 
all grace and justification. The Apostles are but the dispensers 
of his mysteries, the organs whereby both faith and grace are 
imparted to mankind. This fundamental truth is written in 
lines of light in the New Testament. In the first part of the 
first Epistle to the Corinthians, S. Paul is at great pains to 
make it clear to the faithful at Corinth that they must call 
themselves no more after him than after Cephas or Apollo, 
for he preached Christ crucified, and ther were baptized in 
Christ, not in Paul or Cephas. These are but God’s ministers. 
It is God who gives the increase in the souls of the faithful, 
who are in reality God’s husbandry, God’s building. The 
minister ‘s not the master. Other foundation no man can lay, 
but that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus. 

S Paul employs two metaphors which depict with beauty and 
force ihe nature and character of the Christian Church. The 
first is an edsfice, the second an organic body. But he originated 
neither. Both were already suggested by the Gospels. S. John’s 
Gospel forestalled the organism, and our Lord’s words recorded 
in S. Matthew foreshadowed the building. The two together, 
like soul and body, combine in a most striking manner the 
Outward and inward, the visible and the invisible elements, of 
the one living Church. 

11, Matthew relates that Jesus promised to build His 
Church on the rock, Peter, and to give to him, as the steward 


84 THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 


of His household, the keys. In the same Gospel Jesus reminds 
His adversaries of the passage in the Psalm (cxvill. 29. 30): 
“The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the 
“head of the corner. By the Lord this hath been done and it 
“is wonderful in our eyes.” (XxXI. 42). Therefore the king- 
dom of heaven shall be taken from the Jews and given to 
others. Now, what is this kingdom of heaven but the 
“ House of God,” which the Jews built in the Old Testament, 
and Christ renewed? For Christ is the high-priest over the - 
house of God; faithful to Him that made Him, as was also 
Moses in all His house.!® Christ as the Son of God is set over 
His house, which house are we. (Hebr. 11. 6) David, when 
he was hungry, entered into the house of God, the Tabernacle. 
God styles the Temple as His house,?® as He called Israel His 
people, His Son. God pitched his tent among the Israelites ; 
other people were strangers, banished from their father’s house. 
But now the wall of separation has been broken down, and all 
men, Jews and heathens alike, are fellow-citizens of one king- 
dom, forming one household, one compact living temple. 
Irom these foreshadowings in the Old Testament, and from 
our Lords’ words chronicled by S. Matthew, S. Paul has drawn 
‘out in detail a sketch of the building of the Church. He, 
himsel', according to the grace given him, as a wise architect, 
laid the foundation stone Christ Jesus, and erected a building 
of gold and silver and precious stones. (I Cor. Ill. ro seq.) 
Hence Christians are God’s building. “You are no more 
“strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow-citizens with the 
‘saints, and the domestics of God, built upon the foundation of 
“the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the 
‘chief corner-stone ; in Whom all the building being framed 
“together, groweth up into a holy temple in the Lord.” (Eph, 
II. 19-22). One and all are the temple of the all-holy God, 


18. Hebr. x. 21; ili. 2. See Deuter. xxvi. 15. Bar. ii. 16. 
19,) Math. x1.4." Mc. ii, 26, (Ls vb 4. 
ao, Ps. lvi. 7. Jer. vii. 11. See M. xxi.13. Mc. xi.17. L. xix. 46. I. ii. 16 seq 


THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 85 


“Know you not that you are the temple of God, and that the 
‘Spirit of God dwelleth in you? But if any man violate the 
“temple of God, him shall God destroy. For the temple of 
Be coduspholys which you are;” | (1; Cor. 4. 16-17). SWhat 
“agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are 
“the temple of the living God, as God saith: I will dwell in 
“them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they 
‘shall be my people.” (II Cor. vi. 16). And the apostle 
writes to his beloved disciple Timothy that he may know how 
he ought to behave himself in the house of God, which is the 
Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth 
(I Tim. m1. 15). ‘‘ For the time is that judgment should begin 
meatethe*house ‘of¢God?*s1(1° Pet. tv. Any). ; 

And here we may appropriately insert the majestic language 
in which S. Peter, following up the Old Testament ideas of the 
House of God, its priesthood and sacrifices, its priestly families 
and priestly people, describes the dignity and the blessings of 
the new spiritual temple built on Christ, the corner-stone. 
“Unto whom coming, as to a living stone, rejected indeed by 
“men, but chosen and made honourable by God. Be ye also as 
“living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to 
* offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 
“Wherefore it is said in the Scripture: Behold I lay in Siona 
“‘ chief corner-stone, elect, precious. And he that shall believe 
“in Fim shall not be confounded. To you therefore that believe 
‘is honour ; but to them that believe not, the stone which the 
“builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner, 
“and a stone of stumbling and a rock of scandal. . . . 
“ But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy 
“nation, a purchased people.” (I Pet. um. 4-9). This is not 
the place to descant on the universal priesthood. Suffice it 
to point out that the faithful, resting on Christ the corner-stone, 
form that chosen community which was once “ Jahve’s pos- 
session,” a living building which has derived from its corner- 
stone the irresistible might and strength of heavenly light and 


86 THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 


virtue. As long as the faithful are built up in this house, they 
serve in the language of S. Paul, “‘unto the edify’ng of the 
Church,” (I Cor. xiv. 12), to the building up of the body of 
Giitist, -*CL Cot, X11. “12 seq). 

12. This brings us to the second metaphor. The essential 
characteristic of an organism, as opposed to a machine, is 
that it has life. The living stones, built up unto the house of 
God, perform their work and function each in his own place, but . 
only in conjunction with one another and with the corner-stone. 
Nevertheless the edifice only brings home to us the external 
aspect of the visible community, while the other metaphor 
serves admirably to bring out the internal living connection of 
all parts with one another and with Christ, for the Church is 
not only a living body, but is also the body of Christ. This 
internal connection has already been pointed out in another 
metaphor, namely the parable of the vine. The Spirit of Christ 
is, as it were, the soul of the Church, infusing new lie into all 
the members. To illustrate the mutual interaction in the 
Church, to show unity and diversity, grace and liberty working 
in mysterious harmony in the several members and in the 
Church at large, S. Paul employs the simile of the Body and 
the Head. Menenius Agrippa, as we know, told the fable of 
the belly and the members in order to make it clear that the 
several members of the body are mutually dependent and indis- 
pensable one to the other, and thus to deter the Plebs from 
compassing their destruction, by persisting in their foolhardy 
secession. 

The illustration used by the Apostle is similar indeed but 
much more noble as the head is above the belly, or the spirit 
above matter. The purpose, tco, which the Apostle had in 
view, is the noblest and highest possible. He wishes to show 
that one and the same divine Spirit controls the manifold 
workings of grace in the Church. “ For as the body ts one, 
‘and hath many members, and all the members of the body, 
whereas they are many, yet are one body so also is Christ. For 


THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIFTURE. 87 


“in one spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews 
“or Gentiles, whether bond or free, and in one spirit we have 
“all been made to drink. For the body also is not one 
“member, but many . . . . Now you are the body of 
“Christ, and members of member. And God indeed hath 
“set some in the Church, first apostles, secondly prophets, 
“thirdly doctors. . . . Are all apostles? are all prophets? 
“are all doctors.?’”*! Christ “is the head of the body, the 
‘Church, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead ; 
“that in all things He may hold the primacy (Coloss. 1. 18; 
“t11.15). The Father hath made Him head over all the 
“Church, which is His body, and the fulness of Him who 
“is filled all in all.” (Ephes. 1v. 22 seq.) And the goal is 
the perfect man (Ephes. tv. 13), in whom the members, 
who have been made partakers of the fulness of Christ have 
grown up. Just as the body, which at first is small and weak, 
has within it the disposition to grow into a fully developed 
man, so the Church, at first a tiny organism, has received 
from her head the power to develop as long as the kingdom 
of God shal! last and, like individual Christians, to reach 
that mature age in which Christ, who fills all in all, dispenses 
all the treasures of His grace. Of a truth there is one spirit 
at work in the members, in each Church, and in the whole 
Church! Could the union of the God-man with the faithful 
the faithful and with His Church be depicted in more glowing 
colours ? 

13. In order to set in a still cleaver light the intimate 
union that subsists between Christ and His Church, S. Paul, 
adds another metaphor, closely akin to the former, namely, 
the matrimonial union. Here, again, he was but taking 
pattern by the Old Testament and the Gospel. Who, in 
reading the Old Testament, and more especially the prophets, 
has not been siruck by the frequency with which a simile is 
borrowed from marriage—and adultery? The union between 


az 1 Cor. xii, 12-31. Rom. xii. 5. Gal. iii, 38 


838 THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 


Jahve and His people bears the character of an espousal or 
marriage. Jahve is a jealous God, wreaking vengeance for 
His people’s infidelity. The Canticle of Canticles describes 
with varied Oriental colouring, the relations between bride 
and bridegroom. ‘True, the New Testament contains no 
allusion to this, but Christian Theology has, from early times, 
explained it allegorically of Christ’s intimate relations with 
faithful souls, with the Church, and with Mary. ‘This was 
all the more natural, as the New Testament actually describes 
- our Lord as the bridegroom. ‘“ He that hath the bride is the 
“bridegroom ; but the friend of the bridegroom who sta: deth 
“and heareth him, rejoiceth with joy because of the bride- 
“groom’s voice. This my Jy is therefore fulfilled.” (John 
I. 29). ‘To the Pharisees who complained that His disciples 
did not fast Jesus replied: ‘‘Can the children of the bride- 
“groom mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? 
“But the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken 
“away from them, and then they shall fast.” (Matth. 1x. 15). 
Jesus is the bridegroom \«ho comes in the middie of che 
night and takes the wise virgins to the marriage (XXV. Io.) 
The writer of the Apocalypse, filled as he was with the spirit 
of both the Old and the New Testament, vbeheld in ecstatic 
vision this heavenly marriage, “ Alleluia! for the Lord our 
“ God, the Almighty hath reigned. Let us be glad and rejoice, 
“and give glory to Him; for the marriage of the Lamb is come, 
“and his wife hath prepared herself. And it is cranted to 
“her that she should clothe herself with fine linen glittering 
‘Cand white. . For the fine linen are the justifications of saints.” 
(xix. 6-8.) John saw the new Jerusalem coming down out of 
heaven from God, prepa ed as a bride adorned for-her bride- 
groom, and he heard a great voice saying : ‘Behold the tarer- 
“nacle of God with men, and He will dwell with them. And 
“they shall be His peopie, and God Himself with them shall 
“ be their God.” (xxi. 2, 3.) And one of the seven angels said 


a2 Is. liv. 6. Ixii. 5. Os. ii. 1 seq. especially verses 19-20 


THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 89 


to him: ‘Come, and I will show thee the bride, the wife of 
‘the Lamb. And he took me up in spirit to a great and high 
“mountain; and he showed me the holy city, the new 
“Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, having 
“the glory of God.”(xx1. 9-11). Here, indeed, he has more 
in view the end of the Church ; still it is that same bride whom 
Jesus chose when He began His pubhe ministry,—the Church 
of the New covenant, gathered together from the scattered 
Jewish remnant, and decked out among the heathen with truth 
and holiness. 

By thus dwelling on Go!l’s covenant with man, S Paul hoped 
to bring home to the faithful the exalted dignity and con- 
sequent duties of Christian marriage as well as the dignity and 
duties of the Church to her bridegroon. “The husband is the 
“head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church. He is 
“the saviour of His body. Therefore as the Church is subject 
“to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all 
“things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the 
“Church, and delivered Himself up for it, that He might 
“sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of 
‘life. ‘That He might present it to Himself a glorious Church 
“not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should 
“be holy and without blemish. So also ought men to love 
their wives'as their own'bodies. ~; . . Forno man ever 
*‘hated his own flesh, but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, as 
“also Christ doth the Church, because we are members of His 
“body, of His flesh, and of His bones. For this cause shall a man 
“leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and 
“they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament ; 
“but I speak in Christ and in tne Church.” (Ephes. v. 23-31). 

Howsoever we explain the “ Sacrament” (HvTTHpLov) it is 
clear from the Greek text that the union of man and wife, as 
established by God in Paradise, is taken as the model of 
Christs’ inward living union with His bride, the Church. It 
was the Creator’s design from the beginning to make that union 


go THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 


the foundation of the union between God and man, that is, of 
the Church. (I Cor. 11. 6. seq.) And this union was realized 
first in the Incarnation itself, and next in the Church. For by 
uniting Himself to the Church, by adorning her as [lis own 
body, by cleansing and sanctifying her, the God-man continues 
in a mysterious manner the work of the. Incarnation,—the 
union of God with man. As the nature which He assumed, 
was in some sense not an individual, but rather the entire and 
common haman nature, (“ Compendium totius human generis’) 
so also has He united the body of the Church in an especial 
manner to Himself. How magnificently the Apostle conceived 
this significance of the Incarnation for all time and all places 
is seen in the introduction to the Epistle to the Ephesians: 
“As He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, 
“that we should be holy ana unspotted in His sight in charity. 
“Who had predestinated us unto the adoption of children 
“through Jesus Christ unto Himself, according to the purpose 
“of His will.” (1. 4-5). ‘According to His good pleasure 
“which He hath proposed in Him, in the dispensation of the 
“ful yess of times, to re-establish all things in Christ that are in 
‘heaven and on earth, in Him.” (1. 9-10). 

14. The Church, then, according to the Apostle, is the 
continuation of the Incarnation, and the medium by which 
redemption is brought home to mankind. Or is this grand 
idea, this deep conception of the Church as the intermediary 
of mankind in the work of redemption, perchance, a later idea 
of the Apostle, or maybe of a writer, whose mind was already 
warped by later developments in the Catholic Church? Such; 
indeed, is the opinion of some critics; but in proof they offer 
naught but their own subjective ideas of the apostolic and 
post-apostolic age. The letters written by S. Paul during his 
imprisonment, are, it is true, written in a calmer vein, in a 
more general and reflective mood. Yet they are but the natural 
outcome of the teaching that was contained in tne earlier 
Epistles, and was instinct with life, There are no ideas or oidinan- 


THE CHURCH ACCORDING Ta SCRIPTURE. QI 


ces absolutely new in his later writings, none that may not 
be found in germ in the earlier Epistles. This is particularly 
the case with his doctrine concerning the Church. God had 
chosen and ealled him, that he might acquire from amidst 
the corrupt heathen world a bride pure and spotless, and 
worthy of the divine Eridegroom. ‘For I am jealous of you 
“with the jealousy of God. For I have espoused you to 
“one husband that I may present you as a chaste virgin to 
“Christ.” (II Cor. x1. 2). By being united to the God-man, 
the faithful attain that noble end which the Creator proposed 
to the human race and for which the saints of the Old 
Testainent yearned. God became man, in order to give men 
a share in the divine nature, and thereby unite humanity to 
Himself as His bride, the Church. “ For all are yours, and 
“you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.” (Coren 22726) 
The work will be complete at the end of time, when Christ 
shall render all things to God. Then will the great marriage 
feast be solemnized, and the bride of Christ, like His own 
body, will enter into everlasting glory. For Christians “are 
“come to Mount Sion, and to the city of the living God, 
“the heavenly Jerusalem, and to the company of many 
“thousands of angels, and to the Church of the first-born, 
“who are written in the heavens, and to God the judge of 
“all, and to the spirits of the just made perfect, and to Jesus 
“the mediator of the New Testament, and to the sprinkling 
of blood which speaketh better than that of Abel.” (Heb. 
XVI. 22-24), 

15. All these similitudes are something more than mere 
rhetorical figures of speech and poetical images, Underlying 
them is a reality,—a reality full of depth and beauty, because 
intimately bound up with the very basis and essence of 
Christianity. That basis is the Incarnation of the Son of God. 
Now to the ordinary believer there js nothing more real and 
historical than the fact that God’s own Son was truly born in 
time, that He preached and worked miracles in Palestine ; that 


g2 THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 


He died on the cross and rose again from the dead. In like 
manner, the ordinary believer is equally certain, that the 
Church which he had acquired as His bride at such a great cost, 
and left in His place, is a reality like Himself ; the real union 
of men called to participate in the divine nature. As His 
human nature is united to the divine in one person, so the 
Church is intimately penetrated, renewed and sanctified by the 
divine power of the bridegroom. The outward and the visible 
can no more be separated from the inward and the invisible 
than the body in the living organism can be separated from the 
soul, or Christ’s human nature from His divine. Therefore 
whatever the Apostle expressed in the various figures we have 
been considering, is but the bare truth. The Church is the 
copy of Christ Himself. It is not a mere heap of atoms blown 
together anyhow, it is an organic visible body, with members 
superior and inferior, moulded, shaped, and joined together by 
Christ, and it is living with life divine, having the same Spirit 
that Christ had. ‘Phus the two constituent elements of the 
Church, the external and internal, are inseparably united, 
depending and interacting on each other. 

16. That such is the Church described in the New Testa- 
ment, is furthermore confirmed by a consideration of the 
religious life which the Acts and the Epistles represent the 
early Christians as leading. In the beginning the Apostles and 
the faithful in Jerusalem still continued to keep up their con- 
nection with the temple. They went up to the temple to pray ; 
they observed the ceremonial law and circumcision ; and kept 
the feasts with solemnity. It would seem that the respite our 
Lord had granted to Judaism had not as yet expired. The 
new Israel, being born and formed on the soil of the old, was 
connected with it by many ties,* and the time had not yet come 


® It would appear, however, that even while they assembled in the temple, they formed 
a congregation of theirown. ‘‘ And they were a'l with one aceord in Solomon’s 
porch. Sut of the rest, no man durst yo/n himself unto them (koAA ao Cae 
auTois) y but the people magnified them.” Acts v. 13.—7r 


THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE, 03 


for a final and complete severance. Stil] al] the preparations 
for a new life, and a n.w Christian worship were complete, All 
the faithful instinctively felt that they were citizens of a new 
kingdom. “They were persevering in the doctrine of the 
“Apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread 
“and in prayers.” (Acts 11. 42). The breaking of the bread 
and prayers imply that the Christians assembled at a definite 
place. Such a place was the upper room, the house in which 
they were all assembled (Acts 1. 135; H.L; 1Vv. 31); or again 
the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, whither Peter 
turned his steps after his miraculous release from prison (Acts 
XU. 11). From S, Paul we learn (Gal. 11. 9) that when he 
came to Jerusalem those who seemed to be pillars (see I ‘Vim, 
Ill. 5), James, Cephas, and John, gave him and Barnabas the 
right hand of tellowship (xowwivas=communionis), ‘This is borne 
out by what is said in the Epistles of assemblies (churches) in 
private houses. The celebration of the sacred mysteries is 
assigned as the reason for assembling. (I Cor. x1. 18; xzv. 
19, 34, 35). The same is clear from the remark : “ And con- 
“tinuing daily with one accerd in the temple, and breaking 
“bread from house to house, they took their meat with glad- 
“ness and simplicity of heart.” (Acts 11. 46). Clearly then the 
Christians formed a community of their own with their own 
form of worship. 

17. The breaking of bread was not an ordinary meal, 
but the divine meal instituted by our Lord. This phrase 
occurs once in the Gospels, and recalls its connection with 
the institution of the Blessed Eucharist. The disciples at 
Emmaus recognized Jesus in the breaking of bread. It is 
a debatable point whether it refers here to an ordinary meal 
or to the Holy Eucharist; but in any case the phrase in the 
Acts cannot be construed of an ordinary meal. For, if it were, 
the conjunction o ‘he breaking of bread with the doctrine of 
the Apostles and Prayer would be meaningless. Again, on 
one occasion, when the brethren were assembled to break 


94 THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 


bread, it is related that S. Paul gave a discourse. (Acts 3x27). 
And we learn from the first Epistle to the Corinthians that 
by this is meant the Eucharist. “The chalice of benediction 
“which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of 
‘Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the 
“partaking of the body of the Lord. For we, being many, 
“are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.” 
(inG@orn x. 16.217). In the following chapter the Apostle 
speaks of the Lord’s supper in such a way, that the idea of 
a Eucharistic sacrifice is forced upon the mind of the reader. 
He compares it with the sacrificial meals of the heathen, just 
as in the Epistle to the Hebrews, according to the majority 
of commentators, he contrasts it with the Jewish sacrifices: 
“We have an altar whereof they have no power to eat who 
‘cerve the tabernacle,” and this shows that it was not an 
ordinary religious act, nor an ordinary meal flavoured with 
religious rites. It was a true sacrifice of thanksgiving according 
to the order of Melchisedech, a pure sacrifice, that 1s offered to 
God in all places. | Weizsiicker acknowledges this by saying 
that the Eucharistic celebration “became a real thank-offering, 
‘a symbol and a proof of the fact that the kingdom of God 
“had come to them, and had begun to dominate and sway 
“their whole natural and social life.” 

Our Lord Himself imparted to the “ Lord’s supper” the 
character of outward and inward communion with Himself. 
In remembrance of the Jewish Paschal lamb, the proper 
sacrifice of the covenant, which, together with its sacrificial 
meal (communion), formed the basis of the sacrificial rites of 
the Old ‘Testament, He represented Himself as the New 
Paschal lamb, and His sacrifice as the foundation of all sacri- 
ficial worship, and as the communion of the new and everlasting 
Covenant. “As the Paschal meal was the feast of the deliver. 
“ance and a meal of life for the people—a meal wherein they 
“ showed forth their communion with God, so this transformed 


23 Das Afostal. Zeitalter. Freiburg, 1887. p. 44 


THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE, 95 


“Paschal meal became the sacrificial meal for the people of 
“the New Testament, in which the faithful, by eating our 
*“Lord’s body, participated in a substantial way in the great 
“sacrifice, received forgiveness of sins, were cleansed and 
“sanctified, were united as members to the body whose head 
“is Christ, and were enabled to offer themselves up in sacrifice 
“to their appeased God.”?# This eating in common the bread 
come down from heaven, besides strengthening the bonds of 
union among the faithful against the Synagogue, would also 
impart fresh life and vigour to their own spiritual union with 
one another and with their head. In this bloodless continuance 
of the sacrifice of the cross, and the participation in it by 
holy communion, the Incarnation ever endures, inasmuch as 
it unites mankind with God in the body of Christ. The 
holy Eucharist is the best proof that the Church really per- 
petuates the work of the God-man, and that her office is to 
incorporate all humanity in Christ’s body which is the 
Church. Thus, the religious life of the early Christians shows 
clearly that they formed an external community endowed with 
internal divine life. ‘They were a real living body, even the 
body of Christ. 

18. In full and perfect harmony with the two-fold character 
of the Christian community, is, likewise, the promise and gift 
of the Holy Ghost. The disciples had been told, that when 
brought before tribunals they were not to take heed what they 
should say, for the Holy Spirit would teach them. This 
Paraclete, so ofien promised, came down visibly in a mighty 
sign on the Apostles and the faithful. And the first-fruits were 
the three thousand who were baptized. Again and again the 
faithful learnt by experience, in time of trials, or when interests 
affecting the whole community were at stake, that the Holy 
Spirit was abiding not merely within the Church, but that His 
presence would manifest itself exteruully and become a tower of 


24 Dillinger, Christenthuim und Kirche in der Zeit der Grundlegung. Regensburg, 
1860 p. 38, 


96 THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 


strength and encouragement to them. “And when they had 
“prayed, the place was moved wherein they were assembled, 
“and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spoke 
“the word of God with confidence.” (Acts ly. 31). Ananias 
and Saphira lied to the Holy Ghost, and tempted the Spirit of 
the Lord. (v. 3-9). The deacons were men full of faith and 
the Holy Ghost. (vi. 5). Stephen was full of the Holy Ghost, 
and looking up steadfastly to heaven saw the glory of God. 
(vil. 55). The Apostles prayed for those whom Philip the 
Deacon had baptized, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. 
Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the © 
Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that by the imposition of 
the hands of the Apostles the Holy Ghost was given, he offered 
them money, saying: Give me also this power. (VIII 15-19). 
“While Peter was yet speaking these words ” in the house of 
Cornelius, “the Holy Ghost fell upon all them that heard the 
“word. And the faitiful of the Circumcision were astonished 
“for that the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles 
“also, For they heard them speaking with tongues and mag- 
“ nifying God.” (x. 44-46). 

And if it be asked in what precise manner this communica- 
tion of the Spirit was connected with the ecclesiastical commun- 
ity (Church), the answer is supplied by what we read of the 
ordination in the Church of Antioch. ‘‘ There were in the 
‘©Church which was at Antioch prophets and doctors,’ ssseune 
“as they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy 
“ Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas for the 
“work whereunto I have taken them. Then <hey fasting and 
“praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them 
“ away.” (xu. 1-3). When therefore the Apostles and ancients, 
assembled in Council at Jerusalem write: “It hath seemed 
“ good to the Holy Ghost and to us” (xv. 28), their intention 
is not merely to lay stress on the general action of the Holy : 
Spirit on the faithful, but to declare that the Church (that is her 


teachers and rulers) is guided in an especial manner by the % 


THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE, 97 


Holy Ghost. S. Paul also tells us that his missionary course 
was directed by the Holy Spirit. 

Of the working of the charismata among the Gentile 
Christians none knew better than he. He even found it 
necessary to warn them not to set too great a store by the 
charismatic gifts, but above all to keep the inward temple of the 
Holy Ghost pure and undefiled. He enumerates all these 
multiform inward workings and outward manifestations of the 
Spirit, and views thein in their unity of source and purpose, in 
order to impress upon the faithful the fact that the Church is an 
united organism; that inward grace is joined with outward signs ; 
that they are means whereby the faithful are united with one 
another and with God and Christ, so as to form one great 
family. ‘* Now there are diversities of graces but the same 
“Spirit; and there are diversities of ministries but the same 
*‘Lord ; and there are diversities of operations but the same 
“Lord Who worketh all in all” (I Cor, xi. 4-6). “One body 
“and one Spirit ; as you are called in one hope of your calling. 
*“One Lord, one faith, one baptism » one God and Father of all, 
“who is above all, and in usall. But to every one of us is 
“given grace according to the measure of the giving of Christ.” 
(Ephes. tv. 4-7). And lest they should forget that besides the 
gifts common to all or to many there are special gifts proper to 
some only, as, for instance, those connected with the ministry 
of the stewardship of God’s house, the Apostle adds: “ And 
““ He gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some 
“evangelists, and other some pastors and doc‘ors, for the per- 
“fecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the 
“edifying of the body of Christ.” (v. r1-1 Zu: 

19. ‘This external organisation founded by Christ, and com- 
pleted by the Apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, 
has been found eminently useful and necessary for the continu- 
ance of the one, holy and universal Church. How could the 
Apostle’s work in founding churches have endured, if he had 


25 Acts xvi. 6-7. xxi. rz 


98 THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 


not really and closely connected them with one another and 
with the first Church ? How soon a new and inexperienced 
Church, if isolated, would have succumbed to the scorn and 
derision of its heathen neighbours! When laying down laws 
the Apostle frequently appeals in support of his authority to 
the word of the Lord, and to the Holy Spirit within him. In 
like manner he appeals to his work in the various churches 
that he had founded. And surely nothing was more calculated 
to give weight and recommendation to his commands than the 
success achieved in other churches. The Apostle wished that 
in all newly erected churches the same decrees should hold 
good, so that there might be not only oneness in faith and 
sacraments, but also uniformity in worship and religious exer- 
cises. He prays for his churches, and asks them in turn to 
pray for him; he asks them to pray for one another, and 
to hold out a helping hand to one another. This last he 
bases on the new precept of brotherly love (I Cor. x11), which 
the Christians in Jerusalem had so signally illustrated by hold- 
ing their goods in common. ‘Though the institution was not 
perfect, as we learn from the causes that led to the appointment 
of deacons, still, even such as it was, in a world rotten to the 
core with selfishness, it was an astounding proof of the power 
of the Holy Ghost. 

As the Gentiles had received the spiritual gift of the Gospel 
from Jerusalem, so they were to be constantly reminded of 
their unity with the primitive Church by contributing their 
mite, in token of gratitude, for the relief of the poor in 
Jerusalem. S. Paul relates that in the partition of missionary 
districts no other duty was laid on him than that he should be 
mindful of the poor; which same thing he was careful to do. 
(Galat. 1. ro). Is it not a touching sight to see the Apostle 
who spent himself in God’s service, and supported himself by 
the labour of his hands, pleading so earnestly with the new 
converts on behalf of the Saints? to see the poor Gentile 
Christians—for how few were the rich who were converted |— 


THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 99 


place their mite in the poor-box every Sunday, in order that 
the Apostle might have offerings to take to Jerusalem ?2° There 
is only one other instance analogous to this, and it is given by 
Josephus, who records that the Jews of the Dispersion sent 
rich presents every year to the temple in Jerusalem, in order to 
honour God, and to put in evidence that they belonged to the 
chosen people. Naturally, in the kingdom of the Holy Spirit, 
external duties sank into relative insignificance, giving place to 
internal and moral; still they did not altogether disappear. 
This only shows that even a spiritual community, existing in 
the world, cannot disentangle itself from its external ties, as the 
Apostle’s frequent journeys te Jerusalem decisively prove. 
Finally, by giving special prominence in Galatians to his 
relations with Peter, he sufficiently indicates the point in which 
the particular churches scattered all over the world are in 
future to find a centre of unity. The Epistle to the Romans 
also contains remarkable testimony on this head. 

20. From this general exposition, which will in many 
respects be completed as we proceed, we may now glean 
Some sort of a definition of the Church. The Church is 
a visible community built by Christ on the rock Peter, and on 
the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, consisting of 
believers who, united in one body with Christ their head 
by baptism, profess the same faith, use the same means of 
gtace, obey the same laws and ordinances, in order to shew 
forth the kingdom of God and to attain eternal life. This 
definition cannot be made more concise until we have 
examined more carefully and minutely the several constituent 
points included therein. After what has been already said 
concerning ‘the kingdom, it will be needless to observe that 
loss of baptismal grace does not entail loss of membership of 
the visible Church, and conversely that membership is not an 
infallible guarantee of eternal life. And here, perhaps, it is 
right that we should pass in review some definitions of leading 


26 I Cor, xvi. 13. Il Cor. ix. 1. Rom. xv. 26 


100 THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE 


Theologians. Neither the Council of Trent nor the Vatican 
Council has formulated a definition of the Church. In the 
catechism of the Council of Trent there is a paragraph which 
contains the salient points: ‘The Church militant is the 
“ society of all the faithful still living on earth. In the Church 
“militant there are two sorts of men, the good and the bad, 
“and the bad indeed profess the same faith, and partake of 
“the same sacraments as the good, differing in their lives and 
“morals. In the Church they are called the good, who are 
“joined and bound together not only by the profession of the 
‘same faith, and the participation of the same sacraments, 
“but also by the spirit of grace and the bond of charity.”"4 
The words used by the Vatican Council in the beginning of its 
first dogmatic constitution on the Church have the same bent. 
“The Eternal Pastor and Bishop of our souls, in order to 
“ continue for all time the life-giving work of His Redemption, 
‘determined to build up the Holy Church, wherein, as in the 
“ House of the living God, all who believe might be united in 
“the bond of one faith and one charity.”* 

According to Hugh of S. Victor the Church is the society of 
all who believe in Christ; the one body of Christ, of which 
Christ Himself is the head, and the Holy Spirit the principle 
that gives it life, light and warmth. The Scholastics, headed 
by S. Thomas, draw a distinction between the visible Church 


on earth, and the invisible Church in heaven. The Church on 


earth, they say, is both a copy and a type of the Church in 
heaven. As the glorified God-man is the head of the latter, so 
Christ’s visible representative on earth is the head of the former. 
The invisible Church is the society of all the children of God, 
who are united with Christ their head by faith and charity. It 


bears the name of Church by analogy. ‘The relation in which » 


the two Churches stand to each other is clear: the Church in 
heaven or the invisible Church is the goal and ideal to be 


a7 Part I.c.x.3 9-5 and 6. (Donovan's Translation). 


* Cardinal Manning's Translation. 


PAR ie 


= 


+ 


THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 10f 


attained in and through the visible Church on earth.28 The 
latter—that is, the Church properly so called—which we have 
considered in the foregoing pages, is, as S. Thomas says, both 
a copy and type of the heavenly Jerusalem. 

Of the definitions given by Theologians, who have written 
since the rise of Protestantism, two are mostly in repute and 
deserve consideration. Bellarmine stands sponsor for the one, 
Mohler for the other. They differ in this, that one lays stress 
on the external, while the other gives prominence to the internal 
element. Bellarmine’s definition runs thus: “In our opinion 
“the one true Church is the union of men bound together by 
“the same Christian faith, having the same sacraments, and 
“under the guidance of a law-giving shepherd and of Christ’s 
“vicar on earth.” Mohler gives the general definition: “ By 
“the Church on earth, Catholics understand the visible com- 
“munity of believers, founded by Christ, in which, by means 
“of an enduring Apostleship, established by Him, and appoin- 
“ted to conduct all nations, in the course of ages, back to 
“God, the works wrought by Him during His earthly life, for 
“tine redemption and sanctification of mankind, are, under the 
“guidance of His Spirit, continued to the end of the world.” 
Mohler continues: ‘‘ Thus to a visible society of men is this 
“great, important and mysterious work entrusted. The ulti- 
“mate reason of the visibility of the Church is to be found in 
“the Incarnation of the Divine Word.”®® The visible Church 
is the Son of God ever abiding among men in a human form, 
ever renewing His youth,—a lasting incarnation. Thalhofer 
follows him, and defines the Church as ‘‘ Christ manifesting 
“Himself and enduring for ever in all places as the centre 
“of humanity.” 

21. Non-Catholic definitions all agree in denying or under- 


28 See Schwane III. 495 seq. 

29 Bellarm., De Eccles milit. c. it. (De Controv. Tom. II. 1. iii. c. 2). ~Mohler, 
Symbolisrt, Translated by J. B. Robertson, Vol. II. ch. v. § 36 p. 5. Thalhofer, 
Liturgik, 1. 11. See Résler, Prudentius, p. 40. S. Thom. III. q. 8. a. 1.2. 
Petav., de [ncarn. xii. 7. S. Athan., de [acarn. c. xxi. 


102 THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. 


rating, in a greater or less degree, the element of visibility, and 
thereby render a Church on earth with an external organization 
impossible. With them the Church of Christ, the Church 
universal, is invisible, and is commonly limited to those who 
are living members of Christ’s invisible body, or who, at all 
events, have not fallen from the faith. These last, for instance, 
were by the Donatists, who tolerated other sinners, excluded 
from the society of the saints. Consequently, as Augustine 
argued, the Donatists must renounce allidea of a Church, because 
no man is without sin. The Novatians, Cathart, Petrobrusians 
and others, on the contrary, limited the Church to the pure 
and holy, that is, they made it entirely an invisible Church. 
The Pelagians also, though from a different standpoint and in 
a different sense, generally described the Church as the union 
of the perfect and the sinless. Wicliff, Hus and Calvin limited 
the Church to the predestined. Luther likewise taught an 
‘avisibie Church living in spirit in a sphere to which no 
man has access. “I believe ina holy Church on earth, which 
“is not only under the Pope, but is also among Turks, 
‘Persians, and Fartars; and though scattered all over the 
“world is spiritually united under one head, Jesus Christ.” 
In the Confession of Augsburg it is said: “ The Church is the 
“assembly of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly preached, 
“and the sacraments rightly administered.” To this, however, 
the Apology thought it necessary to append the following 
closs: “The Church is not a mere communion of rites and 
“externals, like other states, but is essentially a communion of 
“those who have faith and the Holy Spirit in their hearts; and 
“yet it has withal external marks by which it can be known, to 
“wit, the pure Gospel teaching, and, in conformity with this 
“Gospel, the administration of the sacraments.” But the 
Smalcaldian articles outstrip all. In them it is Said: “hom 
“God be thanked, a seven-year old boy in these days knows 
“what the Church is: namely, the believers, the saints, and the 
“Jambs that hear the shepherd’s voice.” °° 


Conjess Aug. 1 7. Afpol. c. 4.8 5. Art. Smale. p. iiia. 12. Catech. Mapor 


3° 
p-ii.a.2. See Hase, Polemik, Pp. 3 S€q- 


3 
. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
i 
. 
: 


a ae Se ee 


ee Te 


DOE ne ea —— es) oe eee eS 


THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE, 103 


Since the so-called Reformation, and the origin of sects and 
communities innumerable, it has become extremely difficult to 
frame a definition of the Church that will meet with general 
acceptance. Hence the definitions vary according as stress is_ 
laid on the outward or inward elements. ‘These again depend, 
in each case, on the peculiar standpoint and attitude assumed 
by the various communities ; some cleaving to symbolic con- 
fessions, others being tinged with rationalism. One thing is 
clear, that there is no agreement whatever upon even the most 
important points.3! Nowadays it is usual among non-Catholics 
to regard the several churches as more or less successful 
representatives of the ideal Church to which we are ever 
tending, but which we never reach.” 


3t See Réhn, Con/essionelle Lehrgegensdtze, P. ii. p. 8 


32 See Hase, p.7. Martensen, Thiersch, Schenkel, and cthers. So also the Puseyites. 
See Prop. xviii. of the Syllabus: ‘* Protestantism is nothing else, but a difterent 
form of the same true Christian religion; a form in which one can please God as 
well as in the Catholic Church. 


CHAPTER IV. 


THE MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH, 


1. Christ founded but one Church, and He wished it to 
endure to the end of time. Just as belief in one God is 
a first principle in religion and a self-evident truth, because 
there can be only one Supreme Being, so from the very nature 
of things all believers in Christianity must also hold, as a first 
principle, that the one God, Lord and Redeemer has established 
but one kingdom of God on earth. But human wickedness 
bartered the one true God for created idols, the works of man’s 
hands. Hence arose the necessity of commanding the Israel- : 
ites to believe in the true God and no other. So, in like 
manner, the same fate awaited the Church of Christ. Our 
Lord Himself foresaw wolves in sheep’s clothing, seducers and 
Anti-christs ; the Apostles saw them at their deadly work, and 
predicted the disasters that would ensue. False Christs and 
false Churches have arisen, Hence the common moral duty of 
belonging to the Church of Christ, practically resolves itself 
into the duty of distinguishing the one true Church from 
all counterfeits. 

2. How then is the Church of Christ to be known? Our 
Lord once gave a test for detecting false prophets: ‘ By their 
“fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, 
“or figs of thistles?” (Matth. vir. 16). If this general test 
applies to individuals, it must, in a measure, also apply to 
a religious party, or sect, or community. The true Church, 


THE MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH. 105 


therefore, will be known from the false by its fruits. What sort 
of fruits? All works done according to the will of God, which 
Christ revealed to men, God is holy, and men who wish to 
come to Him must also be holy. Christ has shown the way of 
holiness; for He is the way, the truth, and the life. He has 
ordained the means by which holiness is engendered and 
fostered: for He alone can be the source and cause of 
supernatural sanctity. Thus, then, holiness is union with 
Christ, that is, Ao/:mess and unity are the necessary character- 
istics of all true disciples of Jesus. These are the marks that 
He asked and obtained from His Father for the disciples and 
the faithful that He bad gathered round Him, and for the 
multitudes that in after-ages through their word would believe, 
and join their Society. These two marks, therefore, mus? necess- 
arily belong to His Church.* Hence we find that the Apostles 
exacted these two conditions from the faithful, and, in frequent 
exhortations, insisted upon them with special emphasis. 5S. 
Paul, as we have seen, describes the Church as the one bride 
of Christ, holy and undefiled, without spot or wrinkle. More- 
over, as Christ died for all men, and wished all to be saved, so 
the means of salvation wrought by Him must benefit all, and 
be brought within the reach of all peoples and all ages. 
Although He Himself confined His ministry to Palestine, He 
authorized and empowered the Apostles to act in His name 
and in His place, and to carry on His work for all ages to the 
ends of the earth. From none other but those, whom He 
Himself had instructed, and who had received the Holy Ghost, 
could the world learn the divine will as made known by Jesus. 
By submitting to the teaching and authority of these His 
representatives, the world was to render obedience to Christ 


# Catholics are constantly met with the objection that they argue @ prior’, Thus the 
Reviewer of Stanton’s work on ‘The Place of Authority in Matters of Religtous 
Belief’ in the April Number of 7he -Thinker, 1892, p. 334- This is mot true 
except in so far as we apply what are, indeed, necessary /aws of thought, amonz 
which the principle of contradiction certainly holds the first place. It is not the 
@ priori argumeat we lay stress upon, but rather the unity and harmony between 
@ priori and a posterteri, betwees reason and experience. Tr. 


106 THE MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH. 


and the Father. “He that heareth you,” said our Lord, 
“heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me.” 
(Luke x 16). The true Church, therefore, besides being One 
and Holy, must also be <Afostolic. There were, indeed, 
twelve Apostles, but there cannot be more than Oxe universal 
Apostolic Church, because the Apostles themselves were a 
united body, an organic unity, charged to work in unison. 
They were at once the exemplary and the efficient cause, 
1.e. the representatives and the guardians of unity. Hence the 
many churches and different communions founded by them, 
while differing in time and space, formed but one great Church, 
i.e. the universal or Catholic Church, foretold by the prophets 
From this it follows that the true Church must have these four 
qualities—it must be Holy, Oue, Apostolic, and Catholic. 

3. In Holy Scripture all these properties or marks are 
attributed to the kingdom of God, which is the Christian 
Church. But the distinction is not always clearly drawn 
between individuals of the Church and the Church itself, 
nor again between these four qualities when viewed as mere 
properties, and when viewed as marks. And the same remark 
applies to the early Church. Thus S. Ignatius insists chiefly 
upon Catholicity, while Irenzeus and Tertullian expound in 
detail the mark of Apostolicity ; Sanctity found a champion in 
Origen; and Cyprian dwelt forcibly and at length upon the 
Unity of the Church.! 

In his Dialogue against the Luciferians, S. Jerome comprises 
all the marks of the Church in Apostolicity and Catholicity. S. 
Augustine, in his reply to a Manichean, gives his reasons for 
remaining in the Catholic Church. Apart from her pure 
doctrine, which but few adequately grasp, he enumerates the 
following points: the unity of peoples and nations; her 
authority, which was begun in miracles, fostered by hope, and 
mellowed by age; the succession of bishops from S. Peter, to 


x Ignat., ad Suiyrn. c. 8 Iren., adv. Haer. Ill. 3,24. Tertull., de Praescript, c 
20. Orig., de Oral, ¢. 20. Cypr., de Unit Eccl. 


THE MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH. 107 


whom the Lord after His resurrection entrusted the feed- 
ing of His sheep, down to the present episcopate ; in fine, 
the name ‘‘ Catholic,’’ which, amid a multiplicity of heresies, 
this Church alone, not without reason, retains.” S. Vin- 
cent of Lerins mentions Catholicity, Antiquity, and Unity.* 

4. From the words of the Nicene Creed, ‘*I believe in 
One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,”’ the Church 
has always been considered to have four essential marks 
which contain all others. Later Theologians, when com- 
bating the doctrine of an invisible Church, broached by 
tthe Reformers, delighted in piling mark upon mark, and 
constructing a regular pyramid of marks. Naturally, they 
went too far, inasmuch as they introduced marks that were 
either unimportant or doubtful. Thus, for instance, Bel- 
larmine, king of controversialists, enumerates some four- 
teen or fifteen, but observes that they are all contained in 
the four above-named. This is clear from a bare enumer- 
ation: the name ‘‘ Catholic,’’ antiquity, indefectibility, 
catholicity or universality, apostolicity, unity of doctrine, 
unity of constitution or government, efficacy of doctrine, 
the lives of the saints, the fame of miracles, the gift of 
prophecy, the confessions of opponents, the lot that has 
overtaken the persecutors of the Church, the temporal 
prosperity of her defenders. 

5. The Vatican Council teaches: ‘* That we may be able 
‘““to satisfy the obligation of embracing the true faith and 
‘“of constantly persevering in it, God has instituted the 
‘* Church through His only-begotten Son, and has bestowed 
“on it manifest notes of that institution, that it may be 
‘recognized by all men as the guardian and teacher of 
“the revealed word ; for to the Church alone belong ail 
“those many and admirable tokens which have been 
““divinely established for the evident credibility of the 
“ Christian Faith. Nay, more, the Church, by itself, with 
““its marvellous extension, its eminent holiness, and its 
‘inexhaustible fruitfulness in every good work, with its 


2 Contr. Epist. Fund.c. 4. (Migne, XLII. 175). 
3 Commonit.c.3. For other divisions see Bellarmine, Coztrov. Tom. II. 1. 11, 4, 3. 


108 THE MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH. 


‘Catholic unity and invincible stability, is a great and 
‘perpetual motive of credibility, and an irrefutable wit- 
‘‘ness of its own divine mission.’’* 

6. Of the motives of credibility of Christianity we have 
already spoken.® They all bear witness to the Church, 
inasmuch as she has taught, propagated and preserved 
Christianity. And again, the special marks of the Church 
may be called motives of credibility, because they are 
clear, external signs whereby the true Church can be dis i 
tinguished from the sects. Such outward marks are as 
necessary to the Church, as are the motives of credibility 
to Christianity. As our divine Lord considered it neces- 
sary, in addition to the proofs contained in His teaching, 
and in the grace that went forth from Him, to attest the 
credibility of His mission by such outward signs as mira- 
cles and prophecy, so He must also have left some out- 
ward marks by which the continuance of the work of the 
Incarnation in the Church could be recognized. Christ 
was, so to speak, compelled to provide them for His 
Church. How, otherwise, could men find irrefragable 
arguments for beliving in divine mysteries, or convincing 
motives for submitting their understandings to the obedi- 
ence of faith? For without these it is impossible to believe. 

7. From the words of the Vatican Council we cannot 
precisely determine what degree of credibility attaches to 
the marks of the Church. The credibility deduced from 
the proofs of Christianity is ranked as evzdence ; that 1s to 
say, those proofs make the truths of Christianity evidently 
credible. The evidence therefore refers naturally not to 
the contents but to the grounds of faith. In the same 
way, the marks of the Church do not make her doctrines 
evidently true, but invest them with an evident credibility 
which leads to faith, and gives it strength. | 

8. The four attributes are real marks, and not merely 


. a 
™ , —" fe * 
LRA AEA OOO GE et we 


4 De Fide Catholica, cap. 3. (Card. Manning's translation). 


5 Christian Apol. vol, il. chap. ix. 


THE MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCh. 10g 


properties, of the Church. For not only do they belong to 
the very essence and nature of the Church, but they enter into 
the world of sense,—they are visible and evident to all who 
care to see, and to the thinking mind they are the external 
manifestation of the Spirit working within her. Were we asked 
to give some attributes of the Church as distinct from the 
marks, we should be inclined to name infallibility and in- 
defectibility. But, in reaiity, they are bound up in such close 
dependence on apostolicity, unity and sanctity, that these must 
be regarded as their hidden spring and root. The same is 
true of the marks themselves, considered in their mutual bearing 
on one another. To separate them is difficult. This the 
reader must bear in mind. For in explaining the several 
marks, it would not be possible, except at the sacrifice of 
clearness, to avoid all repetition. 

The first and most necessary mark is Apostoticity. For 
this is the only attribute that by itself furnishes and constitutes 
a’complete guarantee that the Church wes instituted by Jesus 
Christ. And since Jesus instituted but one Church, ard that 
the Apostolic, the Church’s oneness in space and time follows 
as a necessary consequence. Here, too, we see the link that 
joins Unity with Catholicity. Unity without Catholicity would 
not be a sure test; because unity within a narrow sphere 
would not be so remarkable a phenomenon as a unity stretching 
across many centuries, over the entire globe. Lastly, this 
Catholic and Apostolic Church must be Holy; because man’s 
sanctification is the very end and purpose of Christianity. And 
this end must be realized by the Church and be, to some 
extent, visible in her life and action. 

g. Sanctity forms the bond of union between the outward 
and the inward marks. It directly points to the deeper cause 
and reason of the Church’s outward life, namely the living 
Spirit, who is the inward cause of her outer life and action. 
The Reformers, in making the internal marks consist in ‘“‘the 
pure doctrine and the right administration of the sacraments” 


110 THE MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH. 


were one-sided ; for these, when severed from the external 
marks, dwindle down too far into the regions of subjectiv- 
ity to be available as real marks. They might have taken a 
lesson from S. Augustine, who places the true doctrine 
after the external marks because, though a necessary attri- 
bute of the Church, it cannot be easily apprehended by all. 
Still, as a matter of course, the truth and grace of Chris- 
tianity lends a powerful support to these motives. For the 
Vatican Council teaches that the Church’s external “ testi- 
‘‘ mony is efficaciously supported by a power from on high. 
‘“For our most merciful Lord gives His grace to stir up 
‘‘and aid those who are astray, that they may come toa 
‘knowledge of the truth; and to those whom He has 
‘brought out of darkness into His own admirable light He 
‘‘ gives His grace to strengthen them to persevere in that 
‘light, deserting none who desert not Him.’” 


% 


6 De fide Cath. c. 3. CCard. Manning’s translation). 


Cita rR H hee 


——— 


ibe Po Ree A POST OMe, 


——————— 


Teo E TESTIMONY OF, SCRILT URL. 


1. Jesus promised His disciples to be with them all days, 
even to the consummation of the world. Thus the con- 
tinuous presence of the God-man in the Church also im- 
plies and presupposes the permanence of the Apostles 
whom He chose. As, in our Lord’s life-time, they formed 
the main portion of the new community and the ground- 
~ work of the Church, so, after His departure from the earth, 
it was incumbent on them, with His assistance and under 
the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to propagate the Church 
He had founded, to preach His doctrine, and to inculcate 
obedience to His commandments. The Apostles were the 
witnesses of the life and resurrection of Jesus, His repre- 
sentatives in the Church, and the dispensers of the mys- 
teries of God. And hence their office and their spirit must 
abide in every Church that purports to be the Church of 
Christ. 

Jesus had constituted the Apostles the special witnesses 
of Hisresurrection. For although He appeared to the faith- 
ful, still it was the Apostles before all others whom he 
honoured with His presence, ‘‘for forty days appearing 
‘‘to them and speaking of the kingdom of God.”’ (Acts 
1.2). He had promised to send the Paraclete, and so 
He ‘‘commanded them that they should not depart 
‘from Jerusalem, but should wait for the promise of 
‘the Father.” (1. 4; Luke xxiv. 49). And He told them 
that they should receive the power of the Holy Ghost 
coming upon them, and that they should be His wit- 


112 THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 


nesses “in Jerusalem, and in all Judzea, and Samaria, and even 
“to the uttermost part of the earth.” (Acts 1. 8). When the 
time for electing some one to fill the place of the traitor Judas 
was at hand, Peter said: ‘“‘ Wherefore of these men who have 
“companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus came in 
“and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John 
“until the day wherein He was taken up from us, one of these 
“must be made a witness of His resurrection.” (I. 21, 22). 
Thus they were perfectly qualified to be Auman witnesses. But 
this was not enough. Their testimony must needs have also a 
special divine sanction. It could not be the fleeting word of 
man, a mere babbling echo in a whirl of human opinions, but 
it must needs be a divine word, penetrating man’s heart and, 
like a two-edged sword, cutting even to the division of the 
marrow and the bone. Its sound was to go forth to all the 
earth, and be heard by all nations. It was of necessity to be 
God’s word, and to be capable of being recognized as such. 

2. This divine sanction they received on the day of Pente- 
cost. True, there appeared fiery tongues over all the fa thful, 
and they were all filled with the Holy Ghest, But as the 
Apostles had previously received a special rank, and 8. Luke 
had just a little before introduced them as a special college 
(Acts 1. 13 seq.), so the promised spirit of truth was imparted 
to them in an exceptional degree and manner. One and the 
same Spirit, indeed, descended on all the faith ul, but upon 
each according to the measure of Christ, i.e. according to the 
position and office he had received. For the Spirit breatheth 
where He will, and gives to each one as He will. Who is it 
that at once stands up and makes known the power of the Holy 
Spirit? It is Peter, the first of the Apostles, who, on the very 
day on which the Holy Ghost set a seal on the Church, steps 
forward as Christ’s witness, and receives three thousand con- 
verts into the Church. It is the Apostles who henceforward 
preach everywhere the word of God, communicate the Holy 
Spirit, and suffer reproach for the name of Jesus. 


=, tego IESE 9 


THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 113 


Nor could the Apostles have posed as public and official 
witnesses, whose testimony should command universal credence, 
unless Jesus Himself had authorized and empowered them so 
to act. And, indeed, as their name implies, they were chosen 
for this very purpose. An Apostle means an ambassador. 
Moreover, did not Jesus Himself previously send them on a 
trial mission ? How much more necessary, then, was an author- 
itative mission after our Lord’s death! This mission Christ 
1epeatedly bestowed on them. First He promised it to Peter 
specially, and to all the Apostles conjointly : “ Whatsoever you 
“shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven ; and 
“ whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in 
“heaven.” (Matth. xvi. 19; xvi. 18). But this judicial 
power cannot exist without a corresponding obedience on the 
part of the faithful. As Jesus identified Himself with the 
Father when He said that whosoever denied Him before men 
would be denied by Him before His heavenly Father, so, in a 
menner, He identifies His Apostles with Himself, and declares 
that He will cons‘der as done to Himself all that is done to 
them: ‘“‘He that recciveth you, receiveth me; and he that 
“receiveth me receivech Him that sent me.” (Matth. x. 40). 
‘He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, 
“despiseth me. And He that despiseth me, despiseth Him 
“that sent me.” (Luke x. 16). 

3. Now these promises, at once definite and general, were 
formally ratified by Jesus after His resurrection. “When the 
“doors were shut where the disciples were gathered together” 
the risen Saviour stood in the midst of them and said: “ Peace 
“be to you. As the Father hath sent me I also send you. 
& When He had said this He breathed on them, and He said 
“to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall 
“forgive, they are forgiven them ; and whose sins you shall 
“retain they are retained.” (John xx. 21-23). Just before 
His ascension He took His Aposiles out to Galilee,—the scene 
of the greater part of His public life, where He had made 


Ii4 THI CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 


disciples,—and there gave them power over the whole world. 
** All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going 
‘therefore teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of 
“the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching 
“them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded 
you.” (Matth. xxvii. 18-20). What Jesus had received from 
the Father, that He communicated to the Apostles. They held 
office among men as teachers, priests and leaders of the Church; 
they are Christ’s vicegerents. To them, as ambassadors of the. 
Father, the faithful owe the same obedience as to the Father 
Himself, 

The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles thoroughly bear 
out this view of the official position which the Apostles held, 
both in local Churches and in the universal Church. In all 
matters that further or impede the progress of the Church in its 
infancy, the Apostles not only play the chief part, but they do 
so ostensibly as accredited plenipotentiaries of Christ, armed 
with the power of the Holy Spirit. Peter and John warn the 
Sanhedrin that they must obey God rather than men. Ananias 
laid part of the price of the land “‘at the feet of the Apostles.” 
Peter tells him that he has lied not. to men but to God, and then 
he inflicted a “terrible chastisement on this first revolt against 
‘Apostolic authority and the Spirit who rules over the Church.” 
When a murmuring arose amongst the Greeks against the 
Hebrews, the Twelve called together the multitude of disciples 
and said: “It is not reason that we should leave the word of 
“God and serve tables.” (vi. 2). During the persecution the 
Apostles stayed benind in Jerusz!em. But when they “ heard 
“that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto 
‘“‘them Peter and John who, when they were come, prayed over 
“them that they might receive the Holy Ghost.” (viii. 14. 15). 
When Saul, after his conversion, had returned to Jerusalem, 
“Barnabas took him and brought him to the Apostles, and 
‘told them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that He 
“had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had dealt 


THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. I15 


‘confidently in the name of Jesus.” (Ix. 27). The reception 
of Cornelius, the first Gentile convert, into the Church was 
undertaken by Peter in consequence of a special revelation. 

At the Apostolic Council, the ‘‘Aposties and ancients ” 
assembled to consider this matter. (xv. 6). The decree, drawn 
up by the ‘‘ Apostles and ancients with the whole Church ” (v. 
22), is represented as the work of the Holy Spirit and of those 
assembled. (v. 28). They write a letter to the brethren: 
“ The Apostles and ancients brethren, to the brethren of the 
“ Gentiles that are at Antioch and in Syria and Cilicia, greeting.” 
Ordinary translations, indeed, read ‘‘ The Apostles and ancients 
and the brethren,” but the five oldest codices, the Armenian 
version, the Vulgate and many Fathers omit the italicised words. 
Moreover our reading, being the more difficult, must be pre- 
ferred, as in the Acts “the brechren” generally mean the faithful. 
The words were omitted “for hierarchical reasons,” naively 
observes Meyer on the passage, and many Protestant writers 
are enthusiastic in adopting his view. But what has he to offer 
in proof? The most modern textual critics, such as Lachmann, 
Buttmann, Tischendorf, Yregelles, Hort, and Westcott, who 
certainly cannot be suspected of hierarchical leanings, have 
adopted the reading that omits “and the.” To argue that. 
the “‘ dvethren”—to which the same word immediately following 
no doubt here gave rise—cannot possibly be used in this sense, 
is to take up an untenable position, as the word, in the singular 
at all events, is repeatedly used to designate a brother in the 
ministry.!. The parallel passage in v. 22 tells more against than 
in favour of the other reading ; for, even there, the community 
is not put on a equal footing with the ‘‘ Apostles and ancients.” 

The work of evangelizing Palestine and the Roman Empire 
was carried out under the direction of the Apostles, with 
Jerusalem as their head-quarters. The Apostles were Apostles 
before the particular community which we are accustomed to 
call the church of Jerusalem, or indeed any one of the parti- 


ar atcore tm x.. 11 Cor. i, x3 Ui. 23.. Kphes. vi. az. Col. i. 2. 


116 THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 


cular churches scattered up and down the country, was founded, 
Properly speaking, the Church begins with the Apostles. They 
are the first Church, the mother Church in Jerusalem, that in 
course of time gave birth to the others. Thus the whole 
Church is not to be regarded as a mere aggregate of churches, 
but as the expansion and development of that Church founded 
by Christ, which, as He had promised, was to be diffused by 
the Apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They 
were one and all daughters of the mother Church which 
contained in germ the universal Church. But they were 
organically connected. They were a genuine growth out of the 
first Church. And the organic bond that linked all particular 
churches was precisely the Apostolate. Round this the whole 
Church revolved as acentre. The Apostles did not confine 
their pastoral care to the church in Jerusalem, but watched 
over other churches as well. Nay, the more the Church spread 
by their preaching, the less conspicuous they became in 
Jerusalem. They disappear from the local church, and in a 
certain sense, even from the scene of history. For the author 
of the Acts had neither the intention nor the power to write a 
history of all the Apostles. His gaze was narrowed to the first 
period in which Saul persecuted the Church, and to the subse- 
quent period in which the figure of Paul towers above all 
others. 

4. Does it thence follow that Christ instituted the Apostolate 
merely as a preaching ministry, and not as an office in the 
Church ?2 Did the choice of the Twelve mean that they were 
called to be teachers and nothing more? Or did it at the 
same tiiae show forth the destiny of the new Israel, which is 
elsewhere reflected in the saying, that they shall sit in judgment 
on the twelve tribes? (Matth. x1x. 28). Hardly any one who 
has read with attention the passages we have quoted, in which 
Jesus invested His Apostles with the power given Him by His 


2 Weizsiicker, Afostod. Zeitalter, ~. 606. Beyschlag, in Riehm’s 51b/, Handwérter- 
buch, i. 73+ 


THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC, lJ 


Father, can doubt that He bestowed on them office and 
dignity. From the Acts, too, we see that the Apostles were 
something over and above preachers and teachers.* It is true, 
indeed, that the office of Apostle was not confined to one 
church or community. But does the office perchance thereby 
lose its character? Assuredly it was precisely in founding, 
arranging and managing new churches, that the Apostles exer- 
cised their office and authority. S. Peter’s visits to the churches 
in Judea, recorded in the Acts, the letters and verbal com- 
munications which frequently passed between S. Paul and the 
churches he had newly founded, bespeak official guidance and 
supervision which lasted until those whom the Apostles had 
set over the churches, were in a position to act more or less 
independently. 

5. But, it is urged, the Apostles can in no way be regarded 
as one corporation ; they were only so many individual units. 
For this reason, it is further urged, it is only individuals, like 
Peter and John, that come to the front, and appear invested 
with power and authority. But this theory is clearly con- 
futed both by the text and words of the New Testament, 
and by the whole analogy with the Old Testament. As ancient 
Israel formed one people, one great synagogue, so the judges 
who sit on twelve thrones form a bench or college, who pass 
judgment in common. ‘The Twelve, then, in virtue of that 
judicial office, which, from many passages, has been demon- 
* In order to understand what the author means by mere preachers and teachers, it 

is necessary to bear in mind that there may be two kinds of teachers. All 
real genuine teachers must of course have a certain authority and power to 
teach. But this power and authority may arise from different sources. One 
teacher's authority is entirely due to his knowledge and capacity. His 
authority begins and ends with his competency. He has no other voucher for the 
truth of his teaching except his own ability to forma judgment. Other teachers 
there are, who, besides having competent knowledge, are appointed to the 
office by one who has the right to make the appointment. Such an authorita- 
tive appointment gives him an authority quite distinct from that derived from 
his own knowledge and competency. He is an authoritative, an authentic 
teacher, in the strictest sense of the term. By mere preachers and teachers, 
therefore, the author denotes the former, not the latter. In no case could the 
Aposties be called mere preachers and teachers. For, even if they had net 


been endowed with authority to rule and judge in the Church, they would still 
have been authoritative and authentic teachers. Tr. 


118 THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 


strated to beiong to them, exercise, in the new Israel, a. power 
that far transcends mere teaching. And this power was given 
to them both personally, and in their corporate capacity. And 
although the want of actual contact brought about by their 
subsequent dispersion seemed for a time, or even for ever, to 
break the bonds that bound them with one another, still, in 
reality, each one felt himself impelled by the same apostolic 
spirit, and was sensibly conscious that he was a member of the 
one corporate body. 

Even S. Paul, whose vocation was effected in a most extra- 
ordinary manner, neither had the power nor the wish to exempt 
himself from the divine ordinance. In going to Jerusalem to* 
know Cephas, he had no other end in view than to establish 
his connection with the head of the Apostles and the Primitive 
Church. When he adds that he saw no other Apostle but 
Peter, excepting James, the brother of the Lord, his purpose is 
to show that he too was a real Apostle, and that his gospel was 
obtained immediately by divine revelation, and not from any 
instructions he had received from the other Apostles. Nor was 
this in any way a reflection on the other Apostles. For, surely, 
it will not be argued that Peter had no connection with them. 
When Paul again visited Jerusalem he mentions no one but 
James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, but 
this only confirms the explanation we have given already. 
(Gal. 1. g). He communicated with the Apostles present “ who 
seemed to be something.” Why should any other reason be 
assigned than that given by the Apostle himself? He com- 
municated to them the gospel which he preached among the 
Gentiles, lest perhaps he “should run or had run in vain” ; 
and he arrived at this understanding with them,—that to him 
and his helpmates was committed the gospel of uncircumcision 
(Gentiles), and to them that of circumcision (Jews). Thus the 
Apostles appear neither as mere teachers without office, nor as 
stray individuals disjointed from a community, but as ministers 
equipped with authority and power, and commissioned, each 


THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. Ode) 


and all, to carry on, as a body, the Redeemer’s work. They 
meet together, and issue, in a joint note, such ordinances as 
seem necessary for the propagation of the gospel and the welfare 
of the Church. ‘These are the “ pillars” on which the Church 
rests. 

6. But, may it not be said, that perchance, a “ few among 
them gradually obtained notoriety thus,” and acquired some 
semblance of authority ? But, first, we would ask in turn, why, 
under such circumstances, should S. Paul, the chosen ves:el of 
election to the heathen, feel himself bound to lay his gospel 
before them ? Secondly, even so, they would have won their 
commanding position, simply and solely, because they were 
Apostles of the Lord ; it would still be basedeon their office 
and dignity. Thirdly, we learn from the Synoptists, that Christ 
Himself began to give the preference to one or two. Peter, 
James and John always stand out prominently.’ Paul’s visit is 
set down by Weizsacker to the year 38. If that be so, then 
Peter’s authority must have risen with incredible rapidity. On 
his visit in 52 AD, he met those who were considered “three 
pulars ” in the Church. But does this circumstance warrant us 
in concluding that the circle of eminent Apostles was contract- 
ing, and that there were only a few of any importance left, and 
they not by reason of their office, but on account of their 
personal influence and position ? 

The Apostle of the Gentiles himself refutes this theory of 
gradual development of the apostolic authority, when he else- 
where compares his apostolate with that of the Twelve or rathe 
the Eleven. And he does so at an early stage. Speaking of 
the appearances of the risen Saviour, he classifies them into 
two distinct groups: those to Cephas and the Eleven, to 
James and all the other Apostles. He appeals to the example 
of “‘the rest of the Apostles, and the brethren of the Iord, and 
“ Cephas ” to prove his right to live by the gospel. Far from 
casting doubts on the rights and power, the authority and 


3 Matth. xvii. 1; xxvi. 37. Mark v. 370 


120 . THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC, 


dign'ty of the first Apostles, he strives to show, although he had 
not known Christ in the flesh, that he stood on an equal footing 
with them. With dign fied emphasis and holy zeal he pro- 
claims himself to be “ Paul, an Apostle, not of men, nor by 
“men, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father who. raised 
“Him up from the dead.” (Galat. 1.1). But to the first 
Apostles our Lord had said: ‘‘ As the Father hath sent me, I 
‘also send you.” 

Like the first Apostles he claims that his dévine mrsston 
should be recognized. ‘‘ For Christ therefore we are ambassa- 
“dors, God as it were exhorting by us.” (II Cor. v. 20). He 
regards himself, and his companions and fellow-workers as 
“the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of 
“God.” (ICor. tv. 1). As Christ’s envoy, he had planted 
the Church in Corinth, which was a “letter of Christ” 
ministered by him, and written not with ink, but with the Spirit 
of the living God. “Such confidence we have, through Christ 
‘“‘towards God. Not that we are sufficient to think anything 
‘of ourselves, as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 
“ who also hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament.” 
(II Cor. m1. 4-6). And th’s ministry of the Spirit is far nobler 
than the ministry of the letter. ‘‘ Therefore seeing we have 
“this min stration, according as we have obtained mercy, we 
“faint not.” (II Cor. 1v. 1). And it the Jewish Priést was 
not allowed to take the honour to himself (Hebr. v. 4) should 
the Christian Priest? Nor is the passage from Ephesians Iv. 11 
an instance to the contrary, because it is admitted that he is 
here enumerating the offices according to I Cor. x. 28.4 

7. But, it is objected, the Apostle speaks in the plural, and 
therefore he includes his helpers in the ministry with himself, 
Them also he calls Apostles. Did he then confer on them the 
name as well as the office and the dignity? And if so, how 
can the apostolate be a specific office? Paul, indeed, calls 
Timothy and Silvanus, who accompanied him on his second 


4 Weizsacker, p. 640. 


ttt es oe Bt ee ee a a 5 


a 


were ee Pee 


THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. I21 


missionary journey, Apostles. (I Thess. 11. 7). In the address 
he couples his companions’ names with his own, but he does 
not thereby give them the same rank as himself. The whole 
tenour of the letter contradicts this view. The same is the case 
with I Cor. vi. 9, where the Apostle and Apollo are grouped 
together. For Apollo is a fellow-labourer in the Lord’s vine- 
yard, having preached the gospel in Corinth. But he elsewhere 
insists so strongly on the special vocation e had received, 
that the idea of him supposing that the vocation of his com- 
panions was tantamount to his own, or that they were the 
equals of the first Apostles is not to be entertained. Still less 
can there be a question of equality in Romans xvi. 7, although 
S. Paul appears to number Andronicus and Junias with the 
Apostles, and testifies that they bear an illustrious name. The 
passage runs thus: ‘‘Salute Andronicus and Junias as my 
‘‘kinsmen and fellow prisoners, who are of note among 
“the Apostles.” The word “among” (ev) should, very 
probably, be rendered “‘ with” (afud). And with all the more 
reason, ‘‘ because the word améaroXos, in the wider sense, is only 
“once (I Cor. xv. 7) used of Paul (see Acts xiv. 4.14); and 
*‘yet even here it is used strictly enough to take in James and 
“the Twelve,” as even Meyer remarks on this passage. In 
like manner Peter had previously named himself wh the 
Eleven (see Mark xvi. 7). 

Thus, throughout the whole range of the Pauline Epistles, 
there is not a single passage in which any one of the Apostle’s 
companions is-called an Apostle apart from the others. For II 
Cor. Vill, 23 can hardly be alleged in counterproof, as it treats 
of envoys of the Churches, not of Christ. The same must be 
said of Phil. 1. 25. ‘here only remains the passage in the Acts 
already referred to: ‘which when the Apostles Barnabas and 
“ Paul had heard, &c.” (Acts xiv. 14). Barnabas is honoured, 
both in the Greek and the Western Church, as an Apostle. 
Still it is clear that he was only in a secondary sense an 
Apostle, as he was not immediately called by Christ. In the 


[22 THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 


first place, it is to be noticed that Barnabas is here only 
mentioned in conjunction with the Apostle Paul, and this 
circumstance also explains why he is first named, because, 
forsooth, he it was who had introduced the converted Saul 
to the Apostles. (Acts 1x. 27.) In: the next placemerne 
reason why no special distinction is made between them 
as Apostles, may be manifold. Paul himself is not called 
an Apostle before his ordination and his first missionary 
journey. The name ‘‘ Paul’’ is given to him for the first 
time only in chap. xii. 9. In subsequent passages this 
title is not given to him either alone or with others. And, 
if he had been called an Apostle because Barnabas was an 
Apostle, then the title would appear regularly whenever 
they are mentioned together, which is not the case.* Thus 
XIV. 14 iS an exceptional case, and the special reason is 
perhaps to be sought in the fact that both were exposed to 
the danger of having idolatrous worship paid to them.* 

The first Epistle to the Corinthians is also urged in proof 
that Barnabas was an Apostle in the full and proper sense.¢ 
S. Paul, speaking in the plural, claims the same privileges: 
as the other Apostles, and then continues thus: ‘‘ Or I 
‘“only and Barnabas, have not we the power to do this?’ 
But both before and after he uses the singular: ‘‘ Am not 
“I free? Am not I an Apostle? Have not I seen Jesus 
“Christ? Are not you my work in the Lord? And if 
‘unto others I be not an Apostle, but yet to you I am. 
‘‘ I have used none of these things.’’ It is clear, therefore, 
that Barnabas is ranked and named among the Apostles 
because of his share in the missionary journeys, labours ° 
and sufferings of S. Paul. But the decisive test, vocation 
and mission by Christ, the Apostle reserves exclusively to 
himself. 


. 5 Acts xill. 43. 46;'50; xv.2n35. 
6 I Cor. ix. 5.6. See Déllinger, Christenthum, p. 57. 


* This explanation is somewhat obscure, and so far as it is intelligible, it does not seem 
to meet the difficulty. For also in xiv. 4 both are called Apostles: and the author 
has admitted above that the word is here taken in a wider sense. [Tr.] 


THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC, 123 


Some, again, have thought that it may be proved from Paul’s 
Epistles that when he came on the scene, he found the custom 
of giving to others besides the Twelve the name Apostle already 
established, and that he was induced by his later vocation to 
extend the title still further in favour of his own authority. 
But there is no foundation whatever for sucha theory. The 
passage in I Cor. xv. 7 has already been noticed. There the 
Twelve are included, and therefore the conclusion that it was 
extended to others is lame. Gal 1. 19 would be convincing only 
in the supposition that James, the brother of the Lord, could 
not be likewise an Apostle. Now the two are very probably 
identical. Nor is this view weakened by I Cor. 1x. 5, where 
the brethren of the Lord are named after the Apostles ; for the 
separate mention of the “‘brethren ne more excludes them 
“from the Apostolate than it does Peter, who is specially 
*“mentioned.”? On the contrary, this passage tells in favour of 
the sense in which we understand the Apostolate. ‘The point 
which S, Paul wishes to urge, is that he can claim the same 
privileges as the other Apostles, because he is an Apostle like 
the others, even though some be brethren of the Lord. This 
line of argument was calculated to bring out his true Apostolic 
dignity to the full. 

Still more surprising is it to see how others argue from Gal. 
I, 1 that there must have been Apostles appointed of men and 
by men. The passage implies the very opposite. For the 
Apostle is defending himself against the taunt that, not having 
been appointed in our Lord’s lifetime, he was an Apostle of 
man and not entitled to be ranked as a genuine Apostle. Had 
he known any, who had been made real Apostles by men, he. 
would not have needed to go so far as to claim equal rank with 
the first Apostles, in order to prove his own claim to the 
Apostolate. This even Weizsacker concedes at the outset. ‘“The 
“Twelve,” he says, ‘‘remain what they are, but the name 
“Apostle was also given to others who were called to be 


7. Weizsacker, pp. 608-610. 


124 THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 


“missioners.” “It cannot be said that Poul bases his own 
“ Apostolic rights on the custom of admitting others to the 
“ Apostolate.” ‘ Essentially the Apostolate was unchanged. 
“| without Apostles there was no Church; all other 
“offices were grafted on this.” 

8 This view receives further confirma’ion from the con- 
ditions that S. Paul requires in one who aspires to the 
Apostolate. He must be of Jewish descent (II Cor. x1. 2ays 
he must have seen the Lord (I Cor. 1x. 1; II Cor. Vv. 16); he 
must be a servant of Christ (II Cor. x1. 23); he must prove 
himself by working signs and wonders and mighty deeds (II 
Cor. xu. 12); and he must steadfastly sufer persecution for 
Christ’s sake (x1. 23 seq.) Strange to say, this has been held 
to prove the contrary view. For these cu.ditions, it is argued, 
would be utterly meaningless, if the number of Apostles had 
been fixed at the outset, and limited to a mcre handful. Such 
a line of argument, however, rests upon a misunderstanding of 
the whole drift of S. Paul in the second Epistle to the 
Corinthians. He is there comparing his Apostolate with that 
of the first Apostles, in order to justify his right, in the teeth of 
slanderers, to be called an Apostle. He compares himself with 
the other Apostles. He will be feolish, and recount his labours 
and persecutions, his visions and revelations, his success, be- 
cause his adversaries had branded him a spurious Apostle. 
But he does not give the slightest intimation that he is there 
setting forth the conditions of the Apostolate in general. His 
leading idea is: “I think that I am nothing less than the 
“creat Apostles.”8 What they were and what the gifts they had 


received we learn from the Acts and the Gospels.? True, he - 


uses hard words against his adversaries, calling them apostles of 
lying, traitors having the mask of Apostles, servants of Satan. 
Now it would be preposterous to suppose that he has here in 
‘view the first Apostles. But is it equally imposible that he is 


8 II Cor. xi. 53 xii. 11. See I Cor. xv. 10. 
g Mark xvi. 20. Acts ii, 435 Vv. 12. 


. 
"a 
3 


THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 125 


hitting out at men who had usurped their position? From the 
very fact that (xt. 5) he mentions the genuine Apostles, he 
cannot have recognized the apostles of lying as apostles in any 
shape or form. They quoted the first Apostles as having these 
preliminary qualifications in order to browbeat Paul. The 
Epistles of commendation (111. 1) prove nothing, as both their 
contents and their author are unknown. S. Paul’s appeal to 
his own living commendatory letier does not proceed from the 
recognition of their Apostolate, but shifts the ground of con- 
troversy from the commendatory letters; that is to say, no such 
letters would avail for attacking his own Apostolate. : 

The Apostolate, then, is not mere missionary enterprise or 
duty, nor the outcome of ‘‘ historical development.” Rather is 
it a positive and peculiar institution ef Christ, for carrying on 
His threefold office. No apostle, in the strict sense, but 
received an immediate mandate from Christ. Had the dignity 
of an Apostle depended solely on a Church having received the 
faith from him, it was surely labour lost on Paul’s part to prove 
that he had equal rights with the first Apostles, from the fact 
that the Lord had appeared to him. As Christ was the point 
in which their preaching centred, so none but Christ’s delegates 
could fully vouch for the truth of faith. The relation in which 
they stood te Christ was the measure of their authority and 
claim to obedience. It was this that made Peter, James, and 
John “pillars.” even in the eyes of those who had not received 
the faith from them. ‘Their authority and rank existed before 
the community, and was independent of it. Of course this 
would not prevent individuals from acquiring a special personal 
authority in churches in which they had erected their sees, as 
for instance, James in Jerusalein (who was much respected by 
the Jews), Peter in Antioch and Rome, Paul in his many 
churches. But the raison @étre of their authority lay not in 
their personal influence, but in their Apostolate. 

9. Naturally, in the exercise of their office, the Apostles 
acted quite differently from worldly magistrates and heathen 


126 THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 


princes. We should not have thought it necessary to touch 
on this point, had it not been twisted into an argument 
against the Apostolate. How, it is asked, could the spirit 
of self-denial and humility tolerate a domineering and 
despotic rule in the Apostolic Church? Did not Christ 
enjoin His disciples to be simple as children? Nay, did 
He not forbid them to bear the name masters, and to lord 
it like the heathen? ‘‘ Be not you called Rabbi. For one 
‘‘is your master, and all you are brethren.’’ (Matth. 
xxi. 8.) Weizsicker, for instance, draws the following 
conclusion from this passage: ‘‘ The emphasis with which 
““« this commandment was given proves clearly that, in the 
“beginning, at all events, it was observed. Consequently, 
‘ all that received the word, became purely and simply dis- 
‘ciples of Jesus. At the same time it asserted the princi- 
‘ple of equality, and thereby made all feel that their society 
‘“‘ was not the same as a school of pupils learning the law. 
‘‘ Moreover, it was not so much their business to interpret 
‘laws, as to excite faith in Jesus as the Christ, and in His 
‘kingdom; and thus the public authority, proper to a 
‘school, was quite excluded in their case. By outsiders, 
‘however, they (the Apostles?) might perhaps be consid- 
‘‘ered an aipeors.”’” 

Is it really possible, we ask, to give so wide a bearing to 
this most simple command? Does the Christian com- 
munity lack authority and organization simply because it 
is not a Rabbinical school? If ever conclusion was wider 
than the premisses, it is this. For the rest we must look 
at the prohibitory command of our Lord in the light of 
the anti-pharisaical character of the whole discourse in 
which it occurs, and even there our Lord plainly draws a 
distinction between person and office. ‘‘ The Scribes and 
‘“the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All 
‘things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, ob- 
‘serve and do; but according to their works do ye 
‘not; for they say and do not.” (Matth. xxl. 23.) So 


10 Weizsicker, p. 37. Langen, Un/fehlbarkeit i. p. 25. 


THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 127 


when Jesus lashes ambition, and warns His disciples not to 
love titles, He does not trample on office, but on the vanity 
and vain glory that takes pleasure in outward pomp and 
splendour. This is clear also from the context. ‘And 
“call none your Father upon earth, for one is your Father 
“who is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters, for one 
~ is your master, Christ. He that is the greatest among 
you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt 
“ himself shall be humbled, and he that Shall humble him- 
~ self shall be exalted.’”’ (Matth. xxuu. 9-12). Is, perchance, 
the title of Father forbidden? Must we conclude that we 
have no Father on earth?'! One thing follows, and only 
one. The Father in heaven is the true Father, from whom 
all earthly paternity proceeds. Christ is the one master, 
siceway,. the-truth, and: theslife. .- Le: therefore’ who as- 
sumes these titles without full authority from Christ and 
God is guilty of pharisaical presumption.'? But he whom 
Christ has installed in office, will discharge it for Christ, 
and not baptize in the name of Cephas, Paul, or Apollo. 
As regards the equality of the brethren the argument is a 
blank. 

The same reply holds good for the warning against the 
despotic exercise of authority. ‘‘ The kings of the Gentiles 
“lord it over them, and they that have power over them 
“are called beneficent. But younot so; but he thatis the 
“ greater among you, let him become as the younger, and 
" he that is leader, as he that serveth.”’ (Luke xxi, 25, 26). 
Why would Jesus have used this illustration at all, unless 
he had actually constituted some as leaders, and placed 
them in authority? He sets Himself before their eyes 
as their model, not by resigning His office, but by 
teaching them to exercise it with humility. He adds: 
“ And I dispose to you, as my Father hath disposed 
“to me a kingdom: that you may eat and drink at my 
“table in my kingdom, and may sit upon thrones judg- 
“ing the twelve tribes of Israel.”’ (Luke xxu. 29. 30). 


‘ 


mr Aug. de fide et symb. c. 4, 9. : 
tz Gregor. M. £4. v.18. See also Déllinger, 1. c. p. 34, 233. 


128 THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 


On this passage S. Peter supplies a commentary : ty aes 
‘ancients therefore that are among you, I beseech who 
‘“am myself also an ancient and a witness of the sufferings 
‘of Christ, as also a partaker of that glory which is to be 
‘ revealed in time to come ; Feed the flock which is among 
‘you, taking care of it not by constraint, but willingly 
‘‘according to God ; not for filthy lucre’s sake, but volun- 
‘tarily ; neither as lording it over the clergy, but being 
‘made a pattern of the flock from the heart.’’  (iPetiy: 
1-3.) What then is forbidden is not office, but a domi- 
neering spirit; not rights and authority, but a despotic 
abuse of authority. | 

If this distinction between the christian and the worldly 
exercise of authority be kept steadily in view, there will 
be no temptation to argue that the Apostles, by adopting 
a kindly and brotherly tone towards the faithful, were un- 
conscious that they held any official position. In point of 


fact, the Apostles could show a strong wrist, when neces- 


sary. They made their teaching and their command re- 
spected. We learn from the Acts that the faithful were 
persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles (11. 42); and 
great stress is laid on this in S. Paul’s Epistles,* as the 
Epistle to the Galatians, from first to last, bears witness. 
Even in the Epistle to the Romans, which was addressed 
to a church to which he was a stranger, he exacts the same 
respect for his words. By Jesus Christ ‘‘ we have received 
‘‘orace and apostleship for obedience to the faith in all 
‘¢ Nations: for. His name.”” {mb §:)° “For I dares maggie 
‘“‘ speak of any of those things which Christ worketh not 
‘by me, for the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and 
‘‘ deed; by the virtue of signs and wonders, in the power 
‘ of the Holy Ghost.’ (xv. 18 seq.) 

ro, Sometimes the Apostles entreated the whole commu- 
nity to co-operate with them. This fact has been pounced 
upon as supplying material for another objection. But, in 


13 II Thess. ii. 15. Rom. vi. 17; xvi. 17. I Cor. iv. 17-213 xiv. 38. II Cor. 
xili. 2 seq. 


yer >? 


t st 


a el 2 


THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 129 


reality, it is only one more proof of the organic connection 
between the Apostles and the faithful, and at the same 
time a mark of great pastoral wisdom. Like the Apostles 
at Jerusalem, when grave issues were at stake, S. Paul 
secured the co-operation of the whole community of Cor- 
inth. With the full consciousness of his apostolic author- 
ity he commands the Corinthians to cast out of their midst 
the incestuous adulterer. Absent, indeed, in body, but 
present in spirit, he hac already judged the man, as though 
he were present. Still he wishes them, in the name of our 
mord jesus Christ; “being gathered together, and my 
“spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to de- 
‘liver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, 
** that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus 
eetonrist. 12 4(1. “Cor v. 1/Seq.) Tn Vike! manner; after the 
man had repented, the Apostle ordered the Corinthians 
to receive him back into the Church lest he should fall a 
prey to despair and perish. In the same light we must 
view other similar orders given by him, to visit scandalous 
public sinners with public censure, or to hand over to Satan 
the recalcitrant.” 

But, it is argued, in the case of the prohibition to dis- 
solve the marriage bond, S. Paul traces it in so many 
words to our Lord’s command (I Cor. vu. 10), and with 
regard to virginity, he draws a distinction between his 
counsel and the Lord’s command. (vit. 25.) This, how-; 
ever, only proves that the Apostle was a dispenser of the 
mysteries of God ; that the teaching and commandment of 
the Lord were his unalterable standard ; but it in no way 
goes to show that he neither had nor claimed the right (xIv. 
37) to issue commands of his own. Giving counsel would 
strip his orders of all binding force, only in the supposition 
that he never gave anything else but counsel. But this is 
not the case. Nay, just as there are only two instances 
in which he, in set terms, quotes the Lord’s commands 
(vl. 10; IV. 14), so he only once uses the word ‘“‘ counsel’”’ 
Peeelie ness)! ili, .6,.15. 15. 1) Tim. i,° 20, .E1. Jim. ‘iil, 5. (Il John %. to. zx. See 


Dillinger, p. 347. 
F 


130 THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 


(cvyyvépn vu. 63 but yvopn vu. 25. 40; II Cor. vitt. Io). 
Further on he gives orders concerning the collections (Xv1. £), 
directions regarding divine worship, the gifts of the -Spirit, 
the flesh offered to idols, and he distinctly says that he will 
regulate other matters when he comes. He appeals to his 
teaching in other churches (vil. 17). He bids the Thessalonians, 
as he had bidden the Corinthians (x1. 2) to hold fast to the 
traditions (II Thess. 1.15). He strenuously protests against 
any change being made in his Gospel.” 

What does II. Cor. 1. 24 prove against this? ‘* Not because 
‘we exercise dominion over your faith, but we are helpers of 
“your joy; for in faith you stand.” What do other similar 
passages prove? ‘For we preach not ourselves, but Jesus 
“ Christ our Lord, and ourselves your servants through Jesus.” 
“T speak not as commanding, but by the carefuluess of others, 
“ approving also the good disposition of your charity.” (viti. 8). 
For does he not say in the same Epistle: “For te this end 
“also did I write, that I may know the experiment of you, 
“whether you be obedient in all things.” (11. 9). Do not the 
words in I Cor. 1v. 21 sound like those of an Apostle having 
power? ‘What will you? Shall 1 come to you with a rod, or 
“in charity, and the spirit of meekness”? In II Cor. x. 4-6 
he says: “ Destroying counsels, and every height that exalteth 
“itself against the knowledge of God . . ~ « and having 
“in readiness to revenge all disobedience.” And at the 
conclusion of his severe letter to the Corinthians he clearly 
states his position in these words: ‘Therefore I write these 
“things being absent, that, being present, I may not deal more 
“ severely, according to the power which the Lord hath given 
“me unto edification, and not unto destruction” (II Cor. 
-xum. ro). The Apostles, it is true, do “ not issue oracular and 
“peremptory decrees, but rather remind and persuade the 
“faithful; they do not set their words on an equal footing with 
“those of the Lord, but distinctly subordinate them (I Cor. 


rs Rom. xvi. 172 II Cor. xi. 4. Gal. i, 1 seq. Phil. i. 27. Col. ii. 7 


THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC, 131 


“vit. 10, 25, 40)” ;16 but does it therefore follow that the 
servants of Christ (I Cor. 1v. 1; I Pet. v. 1) have no authority 
in the Churches? Again, neither the institution of the 
diaconate, which, after all, was not contrary to the wishes of 
the Apostles (Acts vI. 1 seq), nor the gifts of grace given for 
special functions in the Church (I ‘Cor. xu), rob the 
Apostolate, nor even the offices instituted by the Apostles, of 
their official authority. How forcibly S. Paul asserted his 
authority is clear from the foregoing texts which cumulatively 
amount to a “decree.” 5S, Paul has two sides to his character ; 
the one is visible when he seeks to entwine himself round 
tender hearts, the other when he strives to terrify evil doers. 
In some Epistles the two sides alternate: “ The one seems to 
“ebb and flow with the feelings, views and circumstances of 
“his comrades in the faith ; the other, in which, standing on 
“his apostolic dignity, he entreats, reproves and rebukes.” 17 
The Apostles had to deal with neophytes, with people whose~ 
lives were spent amidst heathens steeped in sin, and who 
needed charity and consideration, lest their flickering light 
should be extinguished, or the bruised reed be broken. “ But 
‘on two points, far from showing weakness, they formulated 
“their demands with precision: the duty of confessing Christ, 
“and of entering into no compromise with heretics.” 

Much, then, as S. Paul condescends to the opinions and 
wishes of the faithful, he is as convinced that his Apostolic 
authority is derived immediately from God, as that he is not 
acting as a ‘“‘delegate of the Church.” How -could he have 
written a letter to the Romans, as a delegate of their Church ? 
The wonderful gifts of the Spirit that manifested themselves in 
the Apostolic Churches, enabled even the laity to take an active 
part in teaching, and in the service of God and the Church,!8 
and thus to realize the promised universal priesthood. But 


16 Beyschlag, p. 74. Langen, p. 23. 
17 Dillinger, |. c. p. go, 235. 
18 See Rom. xii. I Cor. xii. I Thess. v. 19 seq. Jam. iii. x. 


132 THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC, 


this yeneral dignity and common duty detracted as little from 
the special authority of the Apostles in the Churches as the 
descent of the Holy Ghost on all the disciples absorbed the 
special communication that had already been given to the 
Apostles when receiving their office (John xx. 23) Of “‘hier- 
“archical absolutism” there is none, indeed, in the early 
Church, but the Apostolic office is hicrarchical, though it be 
exercised in humility and meekness. 

11. Nor, again, is it accurate to say that the teaching office 
of the Apostles lasted only until the faithful had been com- 
pletely schooled in Christian doctrine; as if the Apostles had 
posed as teachers to none but heathens and Jews, and those 
whose instruction was imperfect. Were there then no more 
teachers required among the faithful who had been fully 
“structed? Were they all perfect? But the Apostle says 
distinctly; “ Howbeit we speak wisdom among the perfect, yet 
“ not the wisdom of this world . . but the wisdom of God 
“in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden. . . . Ruttous 
“ God hath revealed it by His Spirit, for the Spirit searcheth all 
“things, yea even the deep things of God.” (I Cor. 11. 6 seq.) 
“Strong meat is for the perfect.” (Hebr. v. 14). The Apestle’s 
activity in writing Epistles is a standing proof that the teaching 
office of the Apostles was bounded by no limits as to time or 
condition, and that it could never become superfluous. Like 
most errors, this theory contains just one grain of truth, namely, 
that revelation closed, and. the deposit of faith was completed 
with the teaching of the Apostles, and that the whole was 
entrusted to the guardianship of the Church, to serve, under the 
guidance of the Holy Spirit, as a source from which the faithful 
were, in all ages to draw the living waters of truth. 

S, Paul, too, frequently refers to the offices that God had 
‘nstituted in the Church, and regularly assigns the first place to 
the Apostolic office. After comparing the Church with the 
body and its members, he says: “ And God indeed hath set 
“some in the Church, first Apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly 


- - 
= 
~- i? 


Lr Manes Scetit aaer Um eal tee. t 


eo Ae ol 


ot Pe peek. 


Oe ee 


—— ee 


a eS a 


a eee) ee ee ee 


a ee ee ae mens 


ee a ee 


THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 133 


“doctors.” (I Cor. xu. 28). Nor may we limit the application 
of this passage to the Church in Corinth, for its whole drift 
forbids this restriction. The only Apostles in Corinth to which 
it could refer would be Paul and Cephas, and they were not set 
over Corinth The parallel texts also demand its application to 
the whole Church.!® And the order of enumeration, too, agrees 
with what the Apostle relates generally about the gifts of the 
Spirit in Corinth. As he himself was conscious of possessing 
them, so he ascribed to the Apostles first-named. the fulness of 
the Spirit Being Apostles they are at the same time prophets, 
and have the grace of healing and the gift of tongues, and 
so forth. Hence it is bad logic to say that S. Paul viewed the 
Apostles, not as bearers of the Apostolic office, but only as men 
endowed with the chartsmata. Nor, again, does it follow that 
the prophets here mentioned were merely persons endowed with 
the charismata, who had ne regular office in the ecclesiastical 
organism as such. For while S. Paul, in treating of the 
charismata, simply mentions the Apostles as the well-known 
authorities, he explains the charisma of prophecy as something 
less known in the Church. These prophets were members of 
the Church, who had received a special gift of the Spirit to 
speak on the doctrines of revelation, and thereby to strengthen 
the faith of the new community.2! The essential difference 
between the two can be gleaned from our Lord’s discourse: 
“He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall 
“receive the reward of a prophet. And he that receiveth a just 
“man in the name of a just man shall receive the-reward of a 
“just man.” (Matth. x. 40). But of the Apostles Jesus says: 


2299 


“He that receiveth you receiveth me.”** (v. 40), The Apostles 
are Christ’s vicars, and the prophetic Spirit guides them in 


their official capacity as teachers and rulers. 


1g Ephes. i, 223; iv. 11. Phil. iii. 6, 
20 Déllinger, p. 297. 
21 I Cor. xiv. 3. 24.25. Ephes. iii. 5. I Thess. v.20. Rom. xii. 6. 


#2 See Apoc, xviii. 20, 243 xxii. g. Acts xi. 28 ; xxi. 10; xiii. 13 xv. 32 


134 THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 


From this we may understand, why Apostles and prophets 
are placed in juxtaposition in Ephes. 4. 20 and 1. 5 ; and why 
there is no need to have recourse here to the Old Testament 
prophets. In Iv. 11, it is true, others, namely evangelists, 
pastors and teachers are mentioned in addition to Apostles and 
prophets. But this is clearly a subdivision rather than a fresh 
list of distinct offices. Some might have shared 1n one or other 
of the manifold works of the Apostolate without being Apostles, 
or without the Apostles ceasing to do the same work. In the 
Teaching of the Apostles (Didache) prophets and doctors, as 
well as Apostles and prophets, are set forth as models for 
Bishops and Deacons (11. 3). Here, indeed, a wider meaning Is 
given to the name “ Apostle,” and the passage in Matthew is 
quoted as a precedent. But the author is far from intending to 
assign the same office to them as to the first Apostles, for _ 
he could not have said of these that people should look upon 
them as prophets of lying, if they tarry three days. Still this 
wider acceptation of the term is unusual in the older literature. 
Thus, Ciement of Rome calls Apollo, as distinct from the 
Apostles, a man approved by them.” The larger signification 
is first found in Clement of Alexandria and Origen.** Still it 
does not, in their writings, obscure the distinction between the 
two kinds of Apostles. 

Who are the “teachers” or “doctors” mentioned by S. 
Paul? What was their relation to the Apostles and the 
Apostolate? We learn from S. Paul that they were those who, 
by a special charisma of the Holy Ghost, were qualified to fulfil 
the office of teaching before the assembled Church, according 
ss the Spirit moved them. Still they are subordinate and 
auxiliary teachers, and cannot be compared with the Apostles, 
who were the first and chief teachers of their Churches.” §S. 
Paul alludes to the “‘ ways which are in Christ Jesus, as I teach 


23 Ad Corinth. 1. 47. 
24 See Funk, Doctrina Apostolor. Tubingae 1887, p. 326 


25 I Cor, xiv. 6. Acts xiii. 1 


ET ee ee ee ee ae ig, 


ae cere 4 


wv 


oe | 


Ce ee a ee ee Oe ee ey le ee 


SN AAT Hh. ir YE euch aha 


‘THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC, , 135 


“everywhere in every Church.” (I Cor. 1v. 17). He speaks 
of “that form of doctrine” (Rom. vi. 17) which he had 
delivered to them. (II Thessal. 1. 15). To this doctrine, 
which none can preach unless they are sent (Rom. X. 14), the 
faithful must hold fast. (Rom. xv1.17) ‘If you have ten 
“thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many Fathers, For 
“in Christ Jesus by the Gospel I have begotten you.” (I Cor. 
Ives). 

In these words the Apostle has described the distinguishing 
mark between the Apostolic and the subordinate office of 
teaching. The Apostles are the dispensers of the mysteries of 
God, and they tend the ministry of reconciliation. (II Cor. v. 
18). By comparing this ministry with Christ’s sacrifice of 
reconciliation, S. Paul shows that the word of reconciliation, 
given to the Apostles, is the outcome of their mission. ‘Though 
they entreat and beseech the people for the sake of Christ, 
**Be reconciled with God,” they do so as Christ’s envoys, 
as ministers and mediators of reconciliation, who can “ beget ” 
the faithful by the Gospel. Nowhere is it said that the mere 
reception of the word will effect this reconciliation, otherwise 
the baptism of regeneration would no Ienger be necessary. 
The Apostles were ¢he dispensers of truth and grace in the 
Church. The case is so clear that it hardly needs further 
explanation. In conclusion we will let a Protestant writer: 
speak for himself. ‘‘ There is no assembly” (ex«xAnoia), says 
Zoeckler, “ without some one to guide and watch over it; no 
“kingdom (PactAeia), nor people (Aaos), without government ; 
“no house without a housekeeper and servants; no temple 
“without bricks and mortar; no field, garden, or vineyard, 
*‘ without labourers ; in fine, there is no living body withouta 
“head and members. . . . And therefore with the Church 
“Christ instituted the Apostolate as the type and pattern of all 
spiritual functions: the preaching of the word (Matth. x.; 
“xXxXvill, 20; Luke xxiv, 47 seq.), the administration of the 
“Sacraments (Matth. xxvut. 19; Luke xxu. 19), and the 


yh THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 


“handling of the so-called keys of binding and loosing, 1.e 
“ ecclesiastical discipline for giving an assurance (!) that sins 
“are or are not forgiven, (Matth. xvi. 19; xvi. 18; John 
“xx, 22), The early Church fulfilled these ordinances of 
‘¢.Christ to the letter.’’#6 

12. ‘These institutions must likewise continue in the post- 
Apostolic Church. For after the death of the Apostles, 
guidance and government, the administration of the Sacra- 
ments, the application of the fruits of the sacrifice of the Cross, 
and the forgiveness of sins were as necessary as ever. If then 


Christ wished to save all men of all ages, He must have provided ~ 


the means necessary for the realization of His scheme. Man, 
indeed, has no right to dictate to the Almighty how he must 
set to work to save man. Goad’s intentions are known from His 
own revelation. But we are justified, seeing what Christ has 
ordained and destined fcr all time, to draw conclusions as to 
His intentions ; we are justified in seeing the finger of -divine 
providence in what the Church, guarded by the Spirit of 
Christ, has taught and done from the beginning. And with all 
the more reason, since the direct and indirect sources of 
information are in accord, especially in the doctrine that the 
Church was built on the foundation of the Apostles, and that 
their successors have preserved intact the Apostolic teaching 
and Spirit, 

Cur Lord promised His Apostles that the Holv Spirit should 
remain with them for ever (John xiv. 16). Nay, when sending 
them on their mission, and certainly addressing none but 
Apostles, He said: ‘‘ Behold I am with you all days, even to 
“the consummation of the world” (Matth. xxvu. 20). This 
could not apply merely to the Apostles personally. For even 
were it suggested that they hoped to live to see Christ’s second 
coming (Parousia), the same cannot be said of Christ, who 
spoke the words ; for He had a higher, 1.e., a divine knowledge. 
Moreover, at the time when S. Matthew’s Gospel was written, 
26 Handbuch der Theol. Wissenscha/t, 1. 746. 


iets 


oy 


» 


Ti. = 


Lao 6 iy 


THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. Lae 


there could be no dovbt that some Apostles, at least, were not 
destined to live till tiie second coming. Again, the view 
opened out in the two Epistles to the Thessalonians is much 
wider, and it grows wider still in the Second Epistle of S. 
Peter. In S. John’s Gospels, too, the opinion that the beloved 
disciple was not to see death until the Lord came, is flatly 
contradicted. So the writers of the Gospels firmly believed 
that the Apostles were to live on in the Churen in some other 
Way. 

13. How, then, do the Apostles continue to live in the 
Church? Do they, perchance, live in their writings? Are 
these writings really of such a character that in them the 
Apostles “ exercise their Apostolic calling in the world to this 
“day, and render all Apostolic succession superfluous, as it 
‘also seems impossible for any but eye-witnesses.”°7 But 
the Apostles very seldom refer to their writings ; and when they 
do, they have in yiew the special circumstances of those whom 
they are addressing. For the rest, they appeal to their preaching, 
their teaching, and their ordinances. Valuable as the Epistles 
are for later times, they are not an adequate substitute for 
personal activity. Nor, indeed, were they intended to be such ; 
otherwise all the Apostles would have written, and all their 
writings would have been something over and above mere 
occasional papers. ‘The Apostles themselves must continue to 
live spiritually in the Apostolic Church. S, Augustine says that 
were it not for the authority of the Church, he would not 
believe in Christ ; for, not having seen Him, he was unable to 
believe any but eye-witnesses. ‘How am I to believe men 
“who speak to me about Christ, when they have not seen 
“Him?” Believe the scriptures, says some one. Yes, but 
any writing, containing new, unheard of statements, or having 
but few recommendations, is not believed without proof; it is 
not believed for its own sake, but for the sake of its sponsors,” 


27 Beyschlag, p. 73. Hase, p. ror. 
28 De Vitil. cred. xiv. 31. 


1338 THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 


14. But the Apostles went a step further. Besides preaching 
and teaching and writing, they gradually ozganized the churches. 
At first the several communities were allowed great latitude in 
the management of their own affairs. This policy was a 
necessity, particularly in the Gentile communities which could 
not, like the Jewish, take pattern by priestly institutions. 
Everything in them was, to a certain extent, in a state of 
flux. For which reason the Apostles were often compelled to 


intervene either by writing or in person; but they were also 


compelled to make arrangements for their temporary or pro- 
longed absence. To learn what these arrangements consisted in, 
we must again turn to the inspired history of the Apostolic 
Church. , | 

In the church of Jerusalem early mention is made of its 
representatives. ‘These must have had, as we may suppose, 
certain well-defined rights. Paul and Barnabas were sent to 
the “ancients” in Jerusalem (Acts xu. 30) and to the ‘‘Apostles 
and priests [mperPirepor]” (xv. 2). Besides these, the Church 
is specially named (xv. 6). The decree was drawn up by the 
Apostles and ancients with the whole Church (v. 22), and 
was sent forth as emanating from the Apostles and ancients 
(v. 23). When Paul went to Jerusalem unto James, all the 
ancients were assembled. (xxt. 18).. This board, whether 
akin or not to the Jewish Sanhedrin, was an organization, 
with the Apostles as directors, which, in conjunction with 
the Apostles and on their behalf, regulated the affairs of the 
Church. In what relation it stood to other churches, is clear 
from what we read of the church at Antioch. The Christian 
communities that radiated from Jerusalem vied with other 
Jews of the dispersion in keeping up their connection with 
Jerusalem. This we gather from the Epistle of James, addressed 
**to the twelve tribes scattered abroad,” in which ‘ancients ” 
of the Church are mentioned. From Hegesippus and Jerome 
we learn that James was succeeded by Simeon, who took 


; 4 


a 


£6, ER PCA tt 


~, 


AR pot ag apt Ra Al Ss eet i tae Sha (os 1 abe 


ye. 


THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC, 139 


up the same position as James, and thus established Apostolic 
continuity. 

Ta the Gentile Christian communities a similar organization 
must have been gradually springing up. The Charismata drop 
more and more into the background, while the ecclesiastical 
offices come to the front and endure. How far these, at the 
outset are to be regarded as personal offices in local government, 
cannot be ascertained, because it is still a moot point, 
whether heathen brotherhoods (codlegia tenutorum) or Jewish 
Christian communities were taken as the model on which the 
Gentile communities were fashioned. At all events one fact 
stands out clearly in the Epistles: that there existed an 
organization recognized by the Apostles. Superiors, men set 
over others (mpoioropevor) are maintained (I Thess. v_ 12), 
and the members of the Church are commanded to obey 
them when they are discharging their duties of teaching and 
Eorrecting) sai Cor =Xvi.-10).. “The allusion: to--rulets= in 
Rom. xu. 8 implies a general institution. And when bishops 
and deacons are named in Philip. 1. 1, we are within our 
right in assuming that by them are meant the rulers and 
leaders of the Church. And this is all the more likely, as 
this letter was written on the Apostle’s last journey, during 
which, having a presentiment of the fate that awaited him, 
he was making provision for the government of the churches. 
In the address to the “sincere companion,” who is entreated 
to take care of Evodia and Svntyche (iv. 3), we may discern 
elimmerings of the position occupied by the first bishop of 
the See. For in this, as in other Epistles, Paul immediately 


d 


goes on to speak of his “fellow-labourers” as distinct from 
himself. And in the Epistle to the Colossans, Archippus 
is bidden to take heed to the ministry which he had received 
in the Lord. (Col. 1v. 17; Philem. 2). 

This view derives confirmation from the Acts, in which it 
is related that Paul and Rarnabas ordained priests for the 


faithful in every church, and commended them with prayer 


ee. WHE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 


and fasting to the Lord. (xiv. 23). Hence there is nothing 
surprising in Paul summoning the “elders of tne Church” 
to Ephesus, before his departure for Miletus. And here is 
another point worthy of note, as bearing on the connection 
between the rulers and the bishops, and on the official position 
they held. The Apostle solemnly assures them that he has 
withheld nothing of the counsel of God from them, and he 
bids them attend to the flock, wherein the Hloly Ghost placed 
them bishops to rule the Church of God, which he. hath 
purchased with his own blood. (xx. 28). In these words he 
brings out two points: first, that the bishops are the depositaries 
of apostolic doctrine; second, that they were appointed by 
the Holy Ghost, not by the community, to succeed the Apostles 
in governing the Church, - 

In S. Peter’s first Epistle we find the pastoral office fully 
developed. The phrases he uses are noteworthy, as they 
enable us to define with greater precision other statements 
in the letter. The Church is the flock of God, which the 
ancients, of whom Peter is one (v. 1.), are to feed, after the 
example of Christ, “the shepherd and bishop of our souls.” 
(1. 25). This simile of the good shepherd shows that they 
are admonished to do more than lend a helping hand to the 
sick, Nor, again, in the Epistle of S. James (v. 14) do the 
priests appear as curing bodily ailments; for prayer as well 
as oil, is indicated as a means of restoration to health. And 
the Apostle adds: “ And if he be in sins they shall be forgiven 
“him.” The second and third Epistles of S. John hkewise 
go to show that the ancients held high office. Diotrephes, 
mentioned in the third Epistle, appears armed with Episcopal 
power, like the angels of the churches in the Apocalypse.” 
Whatever reference the institution of presbyters may have had 
to Israel, it is clear that the Apostles considered them as 
the priests of the new covenant, as chosen not according to 
genealogy, but by the communication of the Holy Spirit, to 
29 Déllinger, p. 329. On the Opposite side Weizsacker, p. 640. 669. 


Pinder bgt ys ENE BPA 


_ 


ey 


a 


THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 141 


lead the New Israel, the holy priesthood, the royal race.” 
The prelates (7yovyevor) mentioned in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews are certainly more than mere officials of the com- 
munity over which they were set; for they in the first in- 
stance preached the word of God to it, and moreover they 
had to give an account of it. From the first Epistle of 
Clement it appears that they were equal to bishops. 

15. A closer view of this organization is obtained in the 
Pastoral Epistles. Timothy and Titus, to whom they 
were addressed, appear as the plenipotentiaries of S. Paul, 
who, by prayer and the imposition of hands, had consti- 
tuted them his representatives. To Timothy he says: 
Ei iis, precept I -command to thee,’’ “‘according to the 
mertopiecies cooing betore thee. 0. elim as 13). 
And again: ‘‘ Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which 
‘“ was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands 
‘“of the priesthood”’ (iv. 14) “‘ and of my hands’”’ (II. Tim. 
1.6). In virtue of this office he charges him to exercise 
discretion in appointing bishops ; and he gives him advice 
in order that, should the Apostle tarry long in coming, he 
may know how to conduct himself in the house of God, 
which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and 
Sroundsotethe truth: (iclimeon1, 15)-.4tle tells ‘him, too, 
how bishops are to be chosen: “‘ Impose not hands lightly 
‘“upon any man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins”’ 
(v. 22). And he lays a similar injunction on Titus: “ For 
‘“this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst 
‘‘ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee’ 
(Titus1. 15). At the same time he enumerates the requi- 


.site qualifications for a presbyter and bishop. 


The two names, presbyter and bishop, were, in- 
deed, somewhat freely interchanged; but there is no 
denying the material distinction between them. For 
whenever they are grouped together, bishops, like 
Apostles, always stand first. Again, in both verses of 
tae Pastoral Epistles (I -Tim. a4.-2; Titus 1. 7), the 


3¢ See Leo M., Sermo 1. 2. 


I42 THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC, 


word bishop is used in the singular, although in Z7tus it is both 
preceded and followed by references to the presbyters. A 
gradation of presbyters with a “ monarchical head” would seem 
to be discernible in I Tim. v.17. The interchange of names 
probably originated with the custom of choosing the bisnops 
from among the presbyters.** From this it cannot, indeed, be 
conclusively proved that bishops are an essentially higher 
grade ; but only that, in the government of the Church, they 
occupied a distinguished position at the head of the priesthood. 
“The bishop no longer appears as a delegate of the Church (!), 
“but as a man appointed by Apostolic authority, and invested 
““with divine power.” 8 But those who appointed and ordained 
bishops with the consent of the Church were the immediate 
successors of the Apostles, and they conferred on them the 
grace they themselves had received from the Apostles. In this 
sense, therefore, these bishops are also successors of the 
Apostles. It is evident, however, that those bishops who were 
-appointed by the Apostles themselves to the chief Churches 
[immediate successors], must occupy the first place in the 
Apostolicity of the Church. Hence the Pastoral Epistles are 
of the highest importance ; and one of the reasons why their 
genuineness has been challenged is precisely because they are 
so pronounced in their testimony to the jact and nature of 
ecclesiastical organization. 

Thus Holy Scripture fully corrobates what one would 
naturally have surmised. The Apostles neither could, nor 
would leave the fiock, entrusted to them, without shepherds, nor 
the Church without teachers and rulers. They continued to live 
in their successors. Hence the Church is Apostolic, not only 
because she is built on the foundation of tne Apostles and 
Prophets, but because the Apostolic office survives in her. 
This was so patent in the beginning from the very fact that she 


33 Weizsacker, p. 37. Petavius, Diss. eccl. i. 1. 2 De eccl. hier. i. 4. Perrone, 
Prael. Theol., Ratisbonae 1855. Tom. ix. S. 104. 


34 Schenkel, Christusbild, p. 165. Holtzman, Pas/oralbriefe, p. 219. 


THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 143 


was a living organization, that proof was deemed superfluous. 
Only when contentions: and schisms arose, did it become 
necessary to remind the faithful that they must be united and 
obedient to Apostolic authority. 


if. TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 


15. Clement of Rome, one of the earliest successors of 
S. Peter, had occasion to speak of this matter. Briefly and 
pithily he sums up the meaning and importance of the Apos- 
tolic office. ‘The Apostles were sent to preach the Gospel by 
“Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ was sent by God. Christ, 
“then, is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ ; and 
“both were ordained according to God’s good pleasure. . . . 
“And when they preached the Gospel up and down the 
“ country, they took their first-fruits, and after proving them by 
“the Spirit, set them as bishops and deacons over the faithful.”®° 
Here we are less concerned with the special formal principle of 
Tradition, than with the general material principle of authority 
and office.* Clement quotes our Lord’s saying, ‘‘ As the 
“Father hath sent me, I also send you.” And he proceeds to 
give it, as was fitting, a wider application. His commentary is 
thus a very decided and very necessary step in advance. The 
Apostles imparted the gift they had received to others, foresee- 
ing that strifes would arise about the Episcopate; and hence 
with prudent forethought they appointed and ordained those 
whom ¢hey had proved, so that when they were gone, other 
trusty men would be at hand to take their place. So, at least, 
Clement expressly informs us.* 

Next to the Bishops, Clement praises the Presbyters, whom 
® By the formal principle of Tradition is meant the divine authority to teach, or, the 

rule of faith; that is to say, the faith of believers depends on the ever-living 
Apostolic magisterium., The author quotes S. Clement's words to prove that there 


continued in the Church not only this special authority, but Apostolic authority to 
rule and govern in geneial. Tr. 


35 Ad Cor. I. 42. 
36 L.c.c. 44. It is a disputed point whether the ministry referred to is that of the 


Apos'les (Rothe, Déllinger, Brill and others), or that of Bishops and Deacons 
(Funk, Gebhardt, Harnack). 


144 THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 


he twice only designates as men of advanced years. Of course 
it is still a disputed point, whether Clement used the words 
Bishop and Priest (Bishop and Deacon) promiscuously. Some 
think that the bishopric of Corinth was vacant at the tine, as 
Clement mentions only presidents and presbyters.*7 Be that 
as it may, we have to bear in mind two things: firstly, that 
Clement is acquainted with Overseers or Bishops (in the plural)°8 
and with men who bore the honoured title of presbyter, and 
represented the community ; and secondly, that this organiza- 
tion was instituted by the Apostles. For the Pastoral Epistles 
are admittedly dominated by the very same conditions (I Tim. 
Iv. 16, however, seems to mark an advance), as the Epistles of 
Clement and the Pastor of Hermas. The latter, while en- 
umerating the ecclesiastical offices (viz. Apostles, Bishops, 
Doctors, Deacons) omits the Presbyters, to whom, however, 
he assigns a prominent place in the community. But Clement 
himself ranks as a Bishop in the Pastor of Hermas® as clearly 
as in Irenzeus and ‘Tertullian. 

Clement, indeed, views Bishops chiefly in relation to the 
Liturgy, and Hermas mentions prophets and doctors as well 
as Bishops. But from this it does not follow that he denied 
the ‘‘teaching office” to B:shops. For in the Epistle to the 
Ephesians, doctors and rulers are set side by side with the 
Apostles, and yet no one will contend that Apostles were 
not doctors. (I Cor. xu. 38). In the Pastoral Epistles, again, 
Timothy is specially exhorted to preserve the deposit of faith 
intact. Clement is thoroughly conversant with the duties of 
a Bishop. According to him the Bishop is the spiritual guide 
and responsible leader of the community. His divine mission 
to discharge these duties of his office constitutes the very 
essence of the Episcopate. In this teaching of Clement we 


37 Dillinger, p. 311. 
38 Weizsacker, p. 639 seq. 


a9 Lipsius, Bibelexicon M11. 23. Funk, PP. Apost. ad Hermam Vis. Ul. 4 Iren. 
Ill. 1. Tertull., De Praescr. c. 32. 


+ yp 3m 


f , ocr t oe : vehi City ints res : ‘ . 
ER ar AE ee SENT Ge Se rt ee ae ee ee eee 


Rigie 4 odin Se 


SHE CHURCH APOSTALIC, 145 


_ have every reason for seeing the true New Testament doctrine 
on the character of the Apostolic hierarchy. He was the first 
to draw the consequences from the principle of apostolicity. 
On this point (hierarchy?) great diversity of opinion prevails, 
owing to the fact “that thinkers have, consciously or un- 
“consciously, allowed their judgment to be warped by later 
‘‘institutions.”42 This circumstance, too, will account for the 
curious phenomenon of many writers looking at the same 
object and each seeing in it something quite different. To some 
the ecclesiastical organization of this early age seems full-blown 
episcopalianism ; to others stark presbyterianism ; while others 
see in it democracy pure and simple. Of course, unless there_ 
were a large field over which speculation might freely roam, 
such strange diversity would be impossible. ‘Then again, as 
some one has remarked, the truth will never be in sight until we 
form a just appreciation of the very peculiar circumstances that 
swayed those early ages. And it should be remembered that 
these men are, in this matter, our only sources of information. 
Now we would ask, whether writers who talk airily about 
Clementine fictions, areon the right road to success? How, 
for instance, could Clement have .championed Episcopal 
authority against the strife-loving Corinthians, if it had been 
an unknown quantity or a moot point, and if it had been 
necessary first to trace it back to the Apostles? 

Is it possible that the Corinthians, forty years after S. Paul’s 
departure from their midst, were quite in the dark as to this 
momentous ecclesiastical institution? It must have been easy 
to trace their line of bishops to S. Paul. Clement does not 
hesitate to remind them of the Princes of the Apostles and 
of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. The same difficulty 
may be urged against those also who conclude from Clement 
and the Ddache that bishops and deacons were primarily 
nothing but liturgical ministers, and that it was the Gnostic 
crisis which first welded the Church into a compact organization, 
40 Weizsacher, p. 606, 

G 


146 THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 


and gave rise to the apostolic and episcopal idea.t! Now this 
last hypothesis is directly refuted by Clement himself, for he 
most certainly teaches that bishops were instituted by the 
Apostles. 

16. Again the Ignatian Epistles are clear evidence of the 
Episcopal system. These letters reach back only to the early 
beginnings of Gnosticism, and yet they exhibit the “ Catholic 
“idea as an ecclesiastical ideal already realized.” Is it not 
then written on the face of history that the germ of the 
ecclesiastical organization as described by S. Paul was by this 
time fully matured and developed ? 

It is certainly indisputable that ecclesiastical institutions in 
the Apostolic age were still in a fluctuating and transitional 
state; they were unfinished, and had not yet set. But, as the 
Church expanded, and the Apostles were nearing their end, 
they began to consolidate. Surely if the authority of the rulers 
grew after the death of the Apostles, when the several churches 
were thrown .on their own resources, such growth implies 
plantation. Who could have planted, if not the Apostles? 


A jealous independence would have quickly blighted the attempt 


of any bishop to exalt himself above the priestly college, unless 
such primacy had been warranted by his apostolic office. How 
could Clement have drawn a sharp dividing line between clergy 
and laity (40. 4), and insisted on the irremovability of bishops, 
if the Corinthians had seen the contrary practice at work ? 
Here, too, there is gradual development, not innovation. ‘It 
“is not correct,” says even Schaefer, “to look upon the 
““Episcopate in itself as a false hierarchial principle, and to 
“regard the constitution of the post-Apostolic Church as a 
“defection from primitive Apostolicity. On the contrary, the 
““Jast period of Apostolic times shows the connecting link, 
“and contains the subsequent development in germ. On no 
“other supposition is its [Episcopate] origin intelligible.” By 


qi Clem., i. 40-44. Didache, c. 15 Harnack, Dogmengesch. i. 155 Note x Hase, 
p- 93. Tschakert, p. ry. 


ae oe er ee ee 


nities pacer pW eingt Mapai yf aeoes 


hh OR pa aay 


Lew VT RA. 


o 


if ihe AO Rah Si ices Rahat a cat he lie apn al pentane 


ae 


he oboring eo 


Pelt oe. EN 


od 


Dit CHURCH APOSTOLIC, 147 


this we may estimate at its true worth the view broached 
by Tschakert and others: ‘‘ The rise of episcopal sacerdo- 
‘‘talism towards the close of the second century, as seen 
““in the ancient Catholic Church, and in the still more re- 
‘“cent popedom, constitutes a breach with the constitu- 
‘tion of the Apostolic churches.’’ When Jerome declaims 
against the pride of bishops,* his passionate denunciation 
must be measured by the violence of his quarrel with 
Bishop John of Jerusalem. In another passage he allows, 
at the very least, that confirmation and ordination fall 
within a bishop’s province.* ‘‘ The Church consists of 
many grades, all ending in Deacons, Priests and Bishops.’’ 

I7. Some writers have had the hardihood to assert that 
the Fathers paid little heed to Apostolic Succession. On 
the contrary, it is a point on which they are most keen. 
In their controversy with the Gnostics, it was paramount 
and had to be emphasised all the more as these heretics 
were appealing in their own justification to a secret Apos- 
tolic tradition. The Apologists in the second century took 
pains to collect the historical proofs, and it is owing to 
their industry that we are now able to trace the succession 
in some of the apostolic Churches. The succession is easi- 
est traced in the case of the Roman Church ; and it is on 
this proof that the Apologists delight to dwell.* Our 
chief informant for the Roman Church is Hegesifpus, who 


-42 Ad Titum1.7. See Decretum Gratiani P 1.; D. xcv.c. 5. 
43 Fp. 146 Ad Luczf. at the end. 


* Trenzus, adv. haer, ili. 2. ‘Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a vol- 
“ume as this, to reckon up the succession of all the churches, we do put to 
“confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, 
* by vain glory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized 
““meetings; [we do this, I say] by indicating that tradition derived from the 
** Apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and untversally known church 
** founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and 
** Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to 
“‘ our time by means of the succession of the bishops. For zt 7s a neatler of neces- 
* sity that every church should agree with this church, on account of its pre- 
** eminent authority,,that is the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical 
“tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist 
*‘everywhere, 1.3. The blessed Apostles, then, having founded and built up 
**the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of 


148 THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 


travelled about with the express purpose of examining the 
doctrines and tracing the Apostolic succession of the prin- 
cipal churches. Moreover he sojourned in Rome till the 
year 156. From him and also from /reneus (d. 202)—both 
agree on this point, but differ from later catalogues of 
popes-——we learn that Linus was the first bishop or Rome 
after the Apostles (Peter and Paul), Anacletus the second ; 
then Clement, the author of the aforementioned letter to 
the Corinthians, which contains references to the martyr- 
dom of the princes of the Apostles in Rome, and to 5S. 
Paul’s work in Corinth. Hegesippus goes on to remark 
that on his travels he found the same constitution, the 
same succession, and the same doctrine in all the Churches, 
As to Antioch, we hear from Eusebius,“ that Evodius 
followed Peter as first bishop of the church, and Ignatius 
the martyr came next. As to Jerusalem, our informant is 
once more Hegesippus who tells us that in the year 71 the 


surviving Apostles (John, Philip and Andrew) and the re- 


lations of Jesus met together in Jerusalem, and unani- 
mously chose Simeon, the son of Cleophas, a cousin of our 
dord, for the new bishop. In Asia Minor, the well-in- 
formed Irenzeus, the disciple of Polycarp (d. 155) who was 


a disciple of an apostle, tells us that Polycarp was set by the. 


Apostles as bishop of Smyrna. He calls him a “ blessed 
and apostolic priest.’ Polycrates appeals to him as the 


bishop and faithful witness of Smyrna. He relates of him- | 


‘this Linus Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. ‘To him succeeded 


‘* Anacletus ; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was 
‘allotted the bishopric. . . . . To this Clement then succeeded Evaristus. 
“ Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the Apostles, Sixtus was ap- 
‘‘ pointed ; after him Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus, 
“after him Pius, then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, 
‘* Rleutherius does now, 7x the twelfth place from the Apostles, hold the txherit- 
‘‘ ance of the Episcopate. In this order, and by this successton, the ecclesiastical 
“tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth come down to us, 
“ And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, 
‘* which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed 
** down in truth.’’—(Clarke’s Translation). 


44 Hist. Eccl. iii. 22. 36. See Dillinger, p. 324. 


45 LEpist. ad. Flor. apud Euseb. H. E. v. 23, 7; 27, 4. 6. 


+ 


aig Pe [oi ity Cade ea eS ey ee ee ee en OT ee Se ae ea eee ee ll . 


THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 149, 


self in his sixty-fifth year, that he was the eighth bishop in his 
family. And since he appeals for this reason to the traditions 
of his relatives and ancestors, he bears certain testimony to a 
line of bishops in one family stretching back to Apostolic 
times. Hence the well-informed Clement of Alexandria could 
write: “After John had returned to Ephesus from Patmos, 
“he travelled about among the neighbouring Gentile districts,. 
“appointing bishops, setting the affairs of the churches in 
. “order, and enrolling among the clergy those whom the Spirit 
“‘ indicated.””46 

To charge these venerable witnesses of the faith with 
falsifying history is to deal a blow at their honour. This is 
Tschakert’s achievement when he says that “ monarchical 
‘bishops. first saw the light in the days of Ireneeus, and 
“that the theory that they had always existed is consequently 
“untenable. Out of this delusion have grown the lines. of 
“bishops of the most notable of the Christian Churches. For 
“by selecting the most distinguished from the ranks of the 
’ “rulers, and arranging them in order back to the days of 
“the Apostles, men have succeeded in forging a sort of 
“historical proof for the figment of “apostolic succession.” 
Flippant talk this about the saints and martyrs of the second 
century! Why, Irenzeus himself stretches back through Poly- 
carp to John! Add to this what has been already said about 
the Pastoral Epistles, and the Epistles of Clement and Ignatius, 
and the chain of historical and theological proof will be 
complete. James’ work in Jerusalem, John’s in Ephesus, 
Peter’s in Antioch and Rome (Mark’s in Alexandria), has 
always been regarded as official and not personal. The interests 
of the churches demanded that on the death of the Apostles 
there should be either vicars or successors, And history bears 
witness that this course was actually followed. What must 
we think of these holy men, yea of the Holy Spirit guiding 


.46 See Dillinger, p. 325. 
47. P. 32. See also Hase, p. 108 


150 THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 


the Church, if since the close of the second century, the 
Church has gone astray on a point so vital to the maintainance 


of unity,—as the Episcopal system? if the whole course of - 


development has been diverted into a wrong channel, by “trans- 
ferring to the Episcopal office, as such, that which originally 
“belonged to the Apostles and presbyters merely in their 
“personal capacity?”** But if, as is frankly conceded, the 
“names of Clement and Ignatius, Hermas and Polycarp, 
“Trenzus and Cyprian mark the transition from the post- 
‘apostolic to the Nicene period,” then we need only add 
the pastoral Epistles of S. Paul to show that, in the Catholic 
Church, the chain of apostolic succession from Christ and 
the Apostles to our own day has been unbroken. 

18. And this Tradition gains strength from two causes: 
firstly, it was part of the living faith of the Church; secondly 
and chiefly, it was the shield of faith that parried the blows 
of heretics. An institution that has grown up with the 
Christian’s daily life and worship, even if men had wished, 


could not have been violently changed and wrenched from 


its place; still less could it have gained universal acceptance 
in the Catholic Church. Can any one believe that S. Zezatius, 


when on his way to Rome to die (about 107), drew his solemn . 


admonition from any other source but the deep conscious faith 
that prevailed in the Apostolic Church at Antioch? Let critics 
wrangle over his Epistles and appraise them as they will, the 
fact remains that they are a powerful testimony to what 
Christians, at the beginning of the second century, believed 
on the rnonarchical idea of the Catholic Church, as Ignatius 
first calls it, and on the division of the clergy into bishops, 
priests, and deacons. 


In words oft repeated and impressive he exhorts the faithful - 


to come together to the one temple and one altar, to Jesus 
Christ, who came forth from one Father, and has returned to 
Him, and abides with Him. He entreated them, by the charity 


48 Ih. Harnack apud Zéckler, iii. 588. 


tan ewig A 


Cre ky 


MH OO 4 


FY 


ie ys 


ee Re er Ay a ee Re ee EE Pe eMC ty het a ee 


PR itt pete 3,g a 20 ape encinsecmerndtingapenten sna 


THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC, 151 


of Jesus Christ, to rally round one another and the priesthood 
in the bishop, to honour the bishop as God, and to do nothing 
without him. ‘‘Obey the bishops, the priests and deacons, 
“since they are appointed by Christ’s orders.” ‘ Without these 
“there is no Church; on this point, I believe, you are agreed.” 
“I am mortgaging my life for them that are subject to the 
‘bishop, the priests, and the deacons.” Bishops and priests 
are the successors of the Apostles. Bishops have preeminence 
as God’s representatives, and the priests hold the place of the 
Apostolic college. Hence the faithful must be obedient to the 
bishep and to one another, as Christ in the flesh obeyed His 
Father, and the Apostles obey Christ and the Father and the 
Spirit, in order that they may be one both in the flesh and in 
the Spirit. The teachings (precepts) of the Apostles must be 
followed as those of the Lord. Hence nothing must be done 
without the bishop; and they must also be subject to the 
priests, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ. ‘Each of you, 
“chiefly the priests, should give to the bishop the honour of 
‘‘the Father, of Jesus Christ, and the Apostles,” #9 

Can it then be matter for wonder that Apostolicity has been 
systematically recorded, since the middle of the second century, 
as the one decisive test of doctrine, writing, and discipline, and 
of communion in the grace and charity of the Church? Onty in 
the agreement of the Apostolic Churches, whose succession can 
be established beyond doubt, and above all of the Roman 
Church, sanctified by the blood ef the princes of the Apostles, 
can truth and authority be found. For in the succession of 
bishops lies the only security that doctrine has been kept pure, 
the true stores of grace dispensed, and fellowship with Christ 
main‘ained. . Christ was sent by the Father, the Apostles by 
Christ, and the bishops by the Apostles. ‘The preaching of 
“the Church, the teaching of the Apostles, the rule of truth, 
“the rule of faith have, since the second century, been the 


49 Ad. Ephes.4. Suiyrn.g. Magnes. 3,13. Philad.1 Trall. 3 Polyc 6. Mazes, 
6, 13.2 TZrall. 7,13 2,23 3, Ie 33 12, 2% 


152 THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 


“usual designation for that body of truths and facts, which the 
“ Apostles delivered when they preached the Gospel.*° 

1g. A brief summary of Apostolic teaching is contained in 
the so-called. Apostles’ Creed. Its very name shows that the 
Church must be Apostolic in faith and doctrine and means 
of grace. Even if it did not formally emanate from the 
Apostles, it contains the faith of the Apostles as confessed 
by the Church, The baptismal formula (Matth. xXvuII. 19) 1s 
without doubt its groundwork. From the baptismal confession 
of faith it sprang. It is also noteworthy that the Roman 
Church possesses the oldest form of this creed, and uses it in 
her office to this day. ‘‘ The importance attaching, under such 
‘circumstances, to the Roman symbol, and to the position 
“occupied by the Roman Church in Catholic development is 
so unmistakably clear that he who runs may read.” 5 

20. Jreneus, however, is generaliy credited with giving full 
and conscious expression to the principle of the Church’s 
Apostolicity in doctrine and discipline, and with having set 
it on a scientific basis. He is said to have been the first to. 
erect it into a theory, by proclaiming the definite interpretation 
of the formula of baptism to be the Apostolic regula veritatis, 
The proof for the “‘ Apostolic character of this body of doctrines. 
“he grounded on the fact that they have come down from the 
“Churches founded by the Apostles, and that these Churches 
‘have preserved the Apostolic teaching without change”. = 
Irenzeus does, indeed, state the principle of the Apostolic rule 
of truth, the principle of “Tradition” or of “faith,” with such 
clear and earnest conviction, that we are obliged to suppose 
that he had in mind not merely a “set formula of confession,” 
on the meaning of which no doubt existed, but that he was 
equally certain of its Apostolic origin and incorrupt preservation 


50 Probst, Lehre und Gebet in den drei ersten christl. Iahrhund. Tiibingen 1871, pe 
41. 76. Scheele, apud Zéckler, 11. 391. Harnack, Dogimengeschichte, 1, 1076 


sr Harnack, p. 259. Anm. 1. Scheele [Caspari] ap. Zoeckler, 11. 393. 
52 Harnack, p. 262. 


THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC 153 


by tradition. On both points he speaks with no uncertain 
sound. 

Irenzus begins his exposition of the rule of faith in these 
words: ‘* The Church spread all over the world to the ends of 
“the earth has received this faith from the Apostles and their 
*disciples”®} The unbroken succession of apostles vouched for 
the purity of the faith. None but the Apostolic Church can be 
the true Church, because she alone has the certain tradition 
from the Apostles. This is the faith of apostolic men; this is 
the idea of the true Church, implanted in their hearts, received 
from the Apostles, and sealed with their blood. From the 
days of the Apostles until now ske cannot but teach everywhere 
the same doctrines without interruption and without change. 
In this the true Church 1s distinguished from the sects. Agree- 
ment with the Apostolic Church is a proof of truth. The sects 
follow their own spirit, and outstrip one another in invention, 
*‘ because they are built not on the one rock, but on the shifting 
“sands.” ‘So they stand convicted of being the disciples, not 
“ofthe Apostles, but of their own perverse opinions.”*+ ‘There 
“is no need then for men to seek from others the truth that 
*‘can be found easily in the Church. For the Apostles have 
** deposited in the Church, as in a rich vessel, all that apper- 
‘tains to truth, so that all who will may drink at her hands 
**the waters of life. For she is the way to life; all others are 
‘thieves and robbers. Them therefore we must shun; but we 
“must embrace, with ‘all diligence, whatever belongs to the 
“Church, and to the tradition of truth.” 

Where, however, are we to look for this Church? To whom 
shall we turn? He answers: “ Suppose there arise a dispute 
“relative to some important question among us, should we not 
‘““have recourse to the most ancient churches, with which the 
** Apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what 
“is certain and clear in regard to the present question ?”? For 


83 Adv. Haer.i. 10,13 v. 20,1 
4. L.c. i. 28,13 ili. 24, 23 12,73 4,13 1V. 26, 2 8eq 


154 THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC, 


since the Apostles committed the Church to the care of the 
bishops, the bishops must be the genuine successors of the 
Apostles. Men must hearken to priests and obey them, 
because the Episcopate, in virtue of succession, has received, 
by God’s will, a sure charisma of truth. And even if there are 
priests who indulge their passions, still “the Church is ever 
“fostering priests, who by holding fast to the sound doctrine of 
“the Apostles, and leading irreproachable lives, confirm and 
‘reform the rest.” Wherever is the Apostolic succession there, 
without fail, is the Apostolic tradition. ‘We are ina position 
“to reckon up those who were by the Apostles instituted 
‘bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession 


“of these men to our own times. Those who neither sought 


“nor knew of anything like what these (heretics) rave about. 
“ For if the Apostles (as the Gnostics hold) had known hidden 
“mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the 
“ perfect, apart and privily from the rest, assuredly they would 
‘have taught them in the first place to those to whom they 
‘“¢ committed the churches themselves.”®> But as it would take too 
long to establish the succession in all Churches, Irenzeus thinks 
it sufficient to point to the greatest and most ancient Church,— 
the Church founded at Rome by the glorious Apostles Peter 
and Paul,—to the tradition it had inherited from the Apostles, 
to the faith which was preached to men, and which through the 
succession of bishops has come down to our own time. 
Apostolicity, then, is the decisive test of a Church. What- 
ever is more recent than the Apostles, or has no connection 
with the Apostolic Church, is no part of the true Church. 
“The character of the body of Christ consists in the succession 
“of bishops, to whom the Apostles entrusted the respective 
“Churches.” ‘All heretics come much later than the vishops, 
“to whom the Apostles have committed the Church.” The 
Church existed among barbarous tribes, before they ever heard 
the name, let alone the tenets of the sects. We can point out 


L.c. iii. 1. See Massuet, Diss. iii. n. 20, 


a 


THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 155 


the beginning and founder of every heresy, for they are of 
subsequent date; but the beginnings of the Catholic 
Church are traceable to none other than Christ and His 
Apostles. Valentinus, Marcion, Cerdon and Menander 
apostatised long after, when the Church was in mid career. 
Such is the doctrine of Irenzeus.” 

21. Tertullian follows Irenzeus in every particular. He, 
too, sees in the baptismal confession of faith, that is, the 
regula fidei, and in apostolicity the groundwork of the 
_Church. Agreement with the rule of faith is the test of 
truth, because the rule of faith was delivered by the Apos- 
tles. Truth will come to those only who walk in this rule, 
which the Church has handed down from the Apostles, 
the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God." And 
who are the representatives of this Church? The bishops 
who come down in a direct line from the Apostles, for the 
disciples of the Apostles could not teach aught but what 
they had learnt from the Apostles. ‘‘ But if there be any 
‘“‘ (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in 
‘the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby 
*“seem to have been handed down by the Apostles, because 
““ they existed in the time of the Apostles, we can say : Let 
““them then produce the original records (origznes) of their 
““churches, and let them unfold the roll of their bishops, 
“running down in due succession from the beginning in 
‘such a manner that their first (distinguished) bishop 
“shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor 
““some one of the Apostles or of the Apostolic men,—a 
““man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the Apostles. 
** For this is the manner in which the Apostolic Churches 
“transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, 
““which records that Polycarp was placed therein by 
“John; as also the church of Rome, which makes 
“Clement to have been ordained in like manner by 


56 Adv. Haer, v. 20,13 iii. 4, 2. 33 26, 5. 


57 De Praescr, c. 37. See Harnack, p. 262. Kolberg, Cultus und Disciplin der 
Kirche nach den Schriften Tertullians. Braunsberg, 18$6. 


156 THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 


‘Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise 
“exhibit (their several worthies) whom, as having been 
appointed to their episcopal places by Apostles, they regard 
‘as transmitters of the Apostolic seed. Let heretics contrive 
“(confingant) something of the same kind. For, after their 
‘blasphemy, what is there unlawful for them (to attempt) ? 
“But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not 
“advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison 
“with that of the Apostles, will declare, by its own diversity 
“and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an Apostle 
“nor an Apostolic man; because as the Apostles would never 
“have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the 
“ Apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different 
“from the Apostles, unless they who received their instruction 
‘from the Apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. 
“7 this test, therefore, will they be submitted for proof by 
“those churches, who, although they derive not their founder 
“from Apostles or Apostolic men (as being of much later date, 
“for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree 
“in the same faith, they are accounted not less Apostolic, 
“because they are akin in doctrine (p70 consanguinitate 
“‘ doctrine). Then let all the heresies, when challenged by 
“our Church to these two tests, offer their proof of how they 
“deem themselves Afostolic.”°® Further on he says, ‘‘Come 
“now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would 
“apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the 
“ Apostolic churches, it: which the very thrones (cathedrae, 
“ chairs) of the Apostles are still pre-eminent in their places 
“(suis locis praesident), in which their own authentic writings 
‘are read, ultering the voice and representing the face of each 
of them severally. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you 
“find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you 
“have Philippi, and the Thessalonians. Since you are able to 


s8 De Prescrift. c. 32. (Clark’s Transl.) See Probst, Die Kirchliche Disciplin. 
Tibingen 1873. p. 33 seq. 


’ 
5 
; 
. 


THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. oy | 


“cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are 
“close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even 
“inte our own hands the very authority (of Apostles themselves), 
“ How happy is its Church, on which Apostles poured forth all 
“doctrine along with their blood.”5 But what a p‘cture he 
draws, on the other hand, of the ways and methods of 
heretical communions. It is worth our while to give it in 
full, because it applies to modern as well as ancient times. 
“I must not omit an account of the conduct of the heretics— 
“how frivolous it is, how worldly, how merely human, without 
“seriousness, without authority, without discipline, as suits 
“their creed. To begin with, it is doubtful who isa catechumen, 
“and who a believer; they have all access alike, they hear 
“alike, they pray alike—even heathens, if any such happen 
“to come among them, That which is holy, they will cast to 
“the dogs, and their pearls, although (to be sure) they are not 
“real ones, they will fling to the swine (M. vir. 6), Simplicity 
“they will have to consist in the overthrow of discipline, 
“attention to which on our part they call fiery. Peace also 
“they huddle up anyhow with all comers; for it matters not 
“to them, however different be their treatment of subjects, 
“provided only they can conspire together to storm the citadel 
“of the One only Truth. All are puffed up, all offer you 
“knowledge. Their catechumens are perfect, before they are 
“full taught. The very women of these heretics, how wanton 
“they are! For they are bold enough to teach, to dispute, 
“to enact exorcisms, to undertake cures—it may be, even 
“to-baptize. Their ordinations (too) are carelessly administered, 
“capricious, changeable, At one time they put xou/ces in office ; 
“at another time, men who are bound to some secular employ- 
“ment; at another, persons who have apostatized from us, 
“to bind them by vain glory, since they cannot by the truth. 
“Nowhere is promotion easier, than in the camp of rebels, 
“where the mere fact of being there is a foremost service, 


59 De Praescr. c. 36. 


158 THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 


‘And so it comes to pass that to-day one man is their bishop, 
to-morrow another; to day he is a deacon, who to-morrow Is 
“a reader; to-day he is a Presbyter, who to-morrow is a 
“layman. For even on laymen do they impose the functions 
of the priesthood.” * 

The Apostolic Church must be the true Church, because the 
men whom our Lord sent forth to preach the Gospel were the 
Apostles. Now, what the Apostles preached can be decided 
only on the oral or written testimony of the Churches which 
they founded, and to which they communicated the truth. 
That doctrine is true which agrees in matters of faith with the 
original mother-Churches set up by the Apostles. “We hold 
“communion with the Apostolic Churches, because our doc- 
“trine is in no respect different [from theirs.] This is [our] 
“witness of truth.” 

22. §. Cyprian’s teaching will be best discussed in the 
chapter on the Unity of the Church. Here it is sufficient to 
observe that in his eyes succession is as indispensable to a 
bishop as ordination. Every one entering the ministry without 
it is an intruder. ‘‘Cornelius,” he says, “‘was made bishop 
‘when the place of Fabian (i.e. of Peter) in the priestly chair 
“was vacant.” & 

23. ‘The Alexandrine Fathers, likewise, asserted the principle 
of Apostolicity, though, perhaps, in a somewhat different way. 
To the false Gnosis they opposed the true, which Clement 
derived from the secref teaching of the Apostles. Unlike the 
Gnostics, however, who pitted their secret tradition against the 
tradition of the Church, Clement held fast by the rule of faith 
handed down by tke Apostles. But the deeper insight into 
divine truths is not given to all, but only to the perfect. 
~Jrenzeus has given voice to the same thought: ‘‘ Among the 
“Church’s rulers there are both learned and unlearned ; the 


61 Ds Fraescr.c.21. Adv. Marci. iv. 5} V- 19s 


62 E/fist. 55, 8. See Peters, Der heil. Cyprian. Regensburg 1877. O. Ritschl, 
Cyfrian von Carthago, 1835, p. 67. 
® Z.c.c 41. This quotation has been added by the Translators, 


THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 159 


“latter do not diminish the tradition, nor do the former teach 
“other or more than is contained in the faith; for the disciple 
“is not above the master.” ‘Only in truth,” says Clement, 
“and in the old Church (i.e. in the Apostolic tradition preserved 
“in the Church) is true Gnosis, and a right choice to be found.” 
“Our source of truth is the Lord who, by means of the prophets, 
“the Gospel and the Apostles, leads us into the fulness of all 
“knowledge.”® The Catholic Church is older than heretical 
communities which, not having come fire-new from the Church’s 
mint, are a base counterfeit coin. 

24. Origen treads in Clement’s footsteps, save that he 
rejccts the secret Apostolic tradition. According to him we 
must ‘‘hold steadfastly to the Church’s tradition which has 
“been handed down in an unbroken line from the Apostles, 
‘and has been preserved to this day in the Church. That only 
“is to be believed as Christian truth which does not deviate by 
“a hair’s breadth from ecclesiastical and Apostolic tradition,”6 

25. [his same principle of Apostolicity which we have 
applied to the doctrine and discipline of the Church, might 
also be applied to the Canon of Scriptnre. In order to prove 
whether a doctrine or ecclesiastical institution is Apostolic, we 
must have recourse to the succession of bishops. In the same 
way we prove whether a book Le canonical or no. Here, 
however, it must suffice to repeat what has been said in the 
second volume. None but the writings of the Apostles and 
their disciples were received into the Canon. Apostolicity was 
‘the final test which the Church, herself Apostolic, applied. 
The Church shows herself to be Apostolic, because she is in 
possession of the Apostolic writings. This seems like arguing 
in a circle ; but only for those who deny that there is historical 
succession in the Church, and that she is guided by the Holy 
Spirit, For such there is no proof either for the Apostolic or 
any other Scriptures. Had it not been for the Church’ S watch- 


63 Strom. vii. 15. See Kuhn, p. 396. Schwane, I. 696. 
64 De Princip, praef. 1.2, See Kuhn, p- 376. Linleitung, 2 ed. p. ga. 


160 THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC, 


fulness, there would have been no Scriptures for heretics to 
have. But, inasmuch as they distort them accoraing to their 
whims and caprices, they are shewn not to belong to the 
Church. §S, Augustine, as we have seen, lays special stress on 
the authority of the Canon. None but Apostolic writings wh 
he regard, according to tradition, as canonical, ie. free from 
error; but he would not believe even the Gospel unless the 
authority of the Church moved him thereto, And thus he set 
a seal on the Catholic principle of authority. 

26. S. Augustine, in his controversies with the Maniahemen 
and Donatists, frequently had an opportunity of setting forth 
at length the doctrine on the Church: hence on this, as on 
many other questions, his authority 1s paramount. On Manes 
he poured out the vials of his scorn for beginn'ng his letters 
with the words, ‘Manes, an Apostle of Jesus Chyist- aon 
asked Augustine, what witnesses, what evidence can he bring 
to support his claim to Apostleship ? [He, whose heresy is 
well known to have begun not only after Tertuilian, but after 
Gypriant) icy ety 1S Wally hes take: eux Apostles as witnesses 
“(in his favour)? Unless he can find some Apostles in life, 
“he must read their writings; and these are all against him. 
“| | He cannot pretend that the writings have been 
“tampered with ; for that would be to attack the credit of his 
“own witnesses. Or if he produces his own manuscripts of 
“the Apos.olic writings, he must also obtain for them ihe 
“authority of the churches founded by the Apostles them- 
“selves, by showing that they have been preserved and 
‘transmitted with their sanction. It will be difficult for a man 
“to make me believe him on the evidence of writings which 
‘derive all their authority from his own word, which I do not 
“believe.” And, again, a little further on, he says: “The 
“authority of our books, which is confirmed by the agreement 
“of so many nations, supported by a succession of Aposiles, 
‘Bishops, Councils, is against you.” 


65 See Ginzel, 7heol. Quartalschrist, 1849, p. 443 Reuter, August. Studien, 1887. 
66 Contra Faust. Manich. xiii. 4.5. (Clark's Tri.) 


THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 163 


These are not mere conclusions, or inferences from general 
principles ; they are based upon well-known facts of history. 
The Church is stamped as apostolic by its genealogy, and the 
succession of its bishops. The Church is the building of Christ, 
and its supports or pillars are the Apostles. In his commentary 
on Ps. X.iv. (xLVv) 17 “ Instead of thy fathers, sons are born to 
“thee,” Augustine traces the connection between the Catholic 
Church and the Apostles. “It was the Apostles begat thee ; 
“they were sent; they were the preachers, they are the /rthers, 
“But was it possible for them to be with us in the body for 
“ever? Although one of them said: ‘I desire to Gepart and to 
“be with Christ which is far better: to abide in the flesh is 
“necessary for your sakes.’ It is true he said this, but how 
“long was it possible for him to remain here? Could it be till 
“this present tims, could it be to all futurity ? Is the Church 
“then left desolate by their departure? God forbid, Lnstead 
“of thy fathers children have been born to thee. What is that P— 
“The Aposties were sent to thee as fathers ; instead of the 
“Apostles sons have been born to thee; there have been 
“appointed Bishops. For in the present day, whence do the 
“Bishops, throughout all the world, derive their origin? The 
“Church itself calls them fathers; the Church itself brought 
“them forth and placed them on the throne of the fathers, 
“Think not thyself abandoned then. . . . Observe how 
“widely diffused is the ‘temple of the king,’ that the virgins 
“that are not led to the temple of the king, may know that they 
“have nothing to do with that marriage. Instead of thy 
“fathers, have thy children been born to thee ; thou shalt make 
“them princes over all the earth. This is the Universal Church : 
“her children have been made princes over all the earth, es 
“Let them who are cut off own the truth of this, let them 
“come to the One Body: let them be led into the temple of 
mipesieings .. 0. ?-* 

Augustine, moreover, like Irenzus, is convinced that the 


* Oxford Translation. 


162 THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 


succession of the Roman Church, in which the primacy of the 
Apostolic chair ever flourishes, is of supreme importance and 
sufficient for all practical purposes. “ When we have to take 
“into account the order of the succession of Bishops, how 
‘much more sure and truly salutary is our way of reckoning 
“from §. Peter downward. Peter, to whom, as acting the 
“part of the whole Church, the Lord had said: ‘Upon this 
“rock I will build my Church.’ For Peter was succeeded by 
“Linus. . . . 78 He then goes on to enumerate the 
succession down to Anastasius who was alive at the time he 
wrote that letter (400). In this long series, he argues, there 
was not one Donatist. Again, those bishops who cannot lay 
claim to Apostolic succession, must, at least, be in communion 
with the Apostolic Churches, and especially with the Roman 
Church, whose succession is the most evident. It is by means 
of the Apostolic Chair or See, and by union with it, that par- 
ticular churches obtain a share in the privilege of Apostolicity.* 
Hence Caecilian was the rightful Bishop of Carthage, as long 


67 Efist. xiii 
68 Efisé.liii. 2. See also Psalm. ¢. part. Donati. 


* he conditions of Apostolicity are of special importance to the English Reader. Itis 
well known that there is a notion abroad among Anglicans that Apostolicity is 
secured by valid episcopal orders and some kind of material or local continuity in 
the episcopal Sees and Churches. On the face of it such a notion is preposterous. 
For had not the Arian bishops, had not Nestorius, and Apollinaris valid orders? ° 
Did they not occupy the sees of orthodox predecessors? And may there not always 
be some heretical Bishops? Then, again, what about schism? Butif heresy and 
schism destroy the Apostolicity of a bishop and a particular church, clearly scme- 
thing more than valid orders and local continuity is required What is /4e condi- 
tion? According to S. Augustine and Tertullian it is ¢omseunion with an Apos 
tolic Church, that is, with one whose Apostolic character is beyond doubt, and 
whose line of bishops in communion with each other has been unbroken. In the 
early ages there were several churches evidently Apostolic, and each one might 
be appealed to as atest of orthodoxy The Roman Church, moreover, as we learn 
from Irenzus, Tertullian, and Augustine, might be appealed to at any time not 
only because she was de facto Apustolic like some of the others, but because she 
was a privileged Apostolic Church, the leading Apostolic Church. This can only 
mean that she neither would nor could ever cease to be Apostolic. She was 
Apostolic de jure But for many centuries, there has been no Apostolic Church 
de facto, exceptthe Roman, and therefore she hasa two-fold right to the privilege. 
And this right involves a corresponding doub:e duty on the part of particular 
churches to be in communion with her; as itis the only means of securing their 
own Apostolicity. Tr. 


@HE CHURCH APOSTOLIC, 163 


as he remained in communion with the Apostolic See of 
Rome.®9 

27. To S. Augustine this demonstration seemed trenchant 
and clenching. In his eyes tt carried absolute conviction with 
it. Nor is it in any way weakened by the fact that he also 
appeals, at times, to arguments from Scripture. It is a common 
opinion of the Fathers that the true Church may be known 
from Holy Scripture, and that the question may be decided 
from the Lord’s words. Like the other Fathers, Augustine 
is fully convinced that Scripture proves the truth of that 
Catholic Church, whose authority induced him to believe the 
Scriptures. This is said in the letter in which he refers the 
Donatists to Scripture, in order to contest them on a common 
ground, and dislodge them from error.” For he regards it as 
a first principle, that there can be but one Church, and that 
this is the one promised by the prophets, preached by the 
Apostles, and called Catholic from the beginning. 

It is hardly necessary to pursue the argument for the Apos- 
tolicity of the Church any further, as it is generally edmitted 
that in Augustine’s time the constitution of the Chureh was 
fixed once for all. “In the second half of the third century it 
“was no longer sufficient to hold the Catholic faith ; obedience 
“to bishops became henceforth de *igueur.* The idea of the 
“one Episcopal Church gained the ascendant, and thrust into 


69 fist. xliii.7. See Schwane ii. 843." 

79 Epist. 105, 3 seq. See Bellarm. Tom. II. 1. ii. 4, 14, Tournely, Tom. V. p. 38: 
Stieren. /renaeus, ii. 280. 

® The statement of Harnack is as characteristic of a Protestant Theologian as it is 
meaningless to a Catholic. Had not Christ, forsooth, commanded men to hear 
and obey the Apostles? Had not the Apostles exacted obedience from 
believers? Was not the point on which Ignatius the Martyr mainly insisted, 
the necessity of remaining im sententia Episcopt, just as Christ remains in 
sententia Patris? As if there ever had been, or ever could be, a Catholic faith 
without such obedience! How could the Catholic faith stand its ground and 
maintain itself, and form a bond of union, if its own authority were liable to 
be called in question? as if the Catholic faith and obedience to bishops were two 
ideas necessarily antagonistic! As if, too, obedience to bishops were not an ele- 
ment of obedience to faith! Then, again, what about S. Paul {Ephes. iv.] who, in 
a far greater degree than the Fathers of the third century, made the Church 
with its organization that Apostolic Deposit to which the obedience of faith is 
due? Tr. 


164 THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 


“the background the significance of the doctrines of faith as a 
“bond of unity. The Church resting on the bishops, the 
“successors of the Apostles aad vicars of God, became, by 
“reason of its foundation, the Apostolic deposit.”41 We 
accept this as a testimony to the fact that the constitution of 
the church was at this time. settled in the Catholic sense. 
But as regards the view of its origin expressed therein, we 
trust we have shewn in the preceding pages, that this organiza- 
tion of the Church was but the natural developmeut of the 
germ planted by Christ and the Apostles. 

28 The Schoolmen, one and all, hoid thz. ine very idea 
of a church carries with it the conclusions stated in the present 
chapter. Gratian’s decree simply embodies the words of S. 
Augustine: ‘‘ Evidently in a doebt about matters of faith the 
“authority of the Catholic Church is supreme ; fer it) rests 
“on the bishops who have succeeded one another in a line 
“from the sees founded by the Apostles to our own time, 
‘Cand on the agreement of so many peoples.”7? And S. Thomas 
says: “It is to be noted that the Aposties and their successors 
“are Christ’s vicars in the government of the Church, which is 
“built on faith and the sacraments of faith. And as they may 
“not found another Church, so neither may they hand down 
“any other faith or institute any other sacraments. But the 
“Church is said to be built up by the Sacraments that flowed 
“from the side of Christ, as He was hanging on the cross.” 

29. So firm and universal was this conviction that even 
heretics have felt themselves obliged to claim Apostolic 
Tradition in support 9f their tenets and their church. But 
the apologists dismissed their claims, with the summary remark 
that the founders of the sects were all more recent than the 
Apostles. S. Augustine after calling upon them to walk in 
the paths of Catholic beliet which Christ and the Apostles 


qx Harnack, p. 310 
qz2 P.I.D.xLc. 9 
73 Ul. 64 2 ad 2. 


/ 


THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 165 


and their successors have pointed out to us, puts into a heretic’s 
mouth the following objection: “This is ridiculous, you will 
“say, for all claim alike to possess and to teach this one way.” 
The Saint then goes on to say, that he cannot indeed, deny 74 
that all put forward this contention, but in so doing they cover 
themselves with ridicule. For how silly and foolish the 
Donatists must be to suppose that the whole Catholic and 
Apostolic Church had been all at once squeezed into one small 
corner of Africa! 

30. Protestants, likewise, were not slow to perceive how 
necessary it was to show that their doctrine and belief con- 
cerning the Church were of Apostolic origin. Over and over 
again the taunt was thrown in their teeth: “The true Church 
“and the true religion must endure as long as the world. This 
“fis a stern necessity, for a road to heaven must be open 
“to all men at all times. False religions, on the other hand, 
“are liable to fluctuate and change. But all writers and all 
“histories proclaim with one concerted voice that the Papal 
“Church is the most ancient, that Christ and the Apostles are 
“its source and origin, and that it has been perpetuated in 
“a regular order and succession.”75 Luther says it is enough 
to make one shriek with fright and stand on one’s head, to 
hear the Pope and his minions boasting that they are the 
Christian Church, And he describes them as mounting the 
rostrum and ranting: ‘“‘ Here’s Peter’s bark; the blind surging 
“waves may toss it to and fro, but it shall never sink. We 
“are God’s true people, the Christian Church. And, pray, 
“who are you?”76 Jn rebutting this charge, Luther executed 
several changes of front; at times he contended that the 
Apostolic Church was invisible ; at other times he championed 
Holy Scripture as the Apostolic message; sometimes, again, 


74 De Util. cred, ix. 2%. 

75 J. Niemoller, /lacius und Flacianigmus. Zeitschrift fiir Kath. Theologie, 1888, 
Di St. : 

96 Werke, herausgegeben von Walch, vii. 2501. See Dillinger, Die Reformation 
1848, ill. 202, Arche und Kirchen, p. 493. Bellarmine, Le. 4. gs 


166 THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 


he appealed to the Fathers, but more frequently to his own 
vocation to preach the pure Gospel, and denounced the 
Catholic Church for falling away from the Gospel. 

The Reforniers and their followers imagined that God had 
withdrawn from the Church soon after the death of the 
Apostles, and left it a prey to Satan, who had taken over 
the office which, according to the Gospel promises, belonged 
to the Holy Ghost. And thus Satan had set up a kind of 
diabolical millenium which lasted until the star of Luther 
arose. The “papistical Church” was commonly set down as 
the synagogue of Antichrist, as a theatre of ignorance and vice, 
and as a “perfect bedlam.” ‘This Protestant notion of the 
Church, as a huge impesture, conducted by knaves and hypo- 
crites at the expense of the deluded masses, is alleged by 
Frederic II. as his main reason for despising Christianity 
altogether. | 

But soon the weakness of the position began to be keenly 
felt. It was perceived that to snap asunder all historical 
continuity with the Church Apostolic was to play with edged 
tools, therefore Flaccius set to work to prove the antiquity of 
Protestantism by compiling his Catalogus testium veritatis. 
The Madgeburg Centuriators, who grew up under his @uition, 
had the same end in view. Their witnesses are the so-called 
forerunners of the Reformation, among whom Waldus, Wiclif, 
Hus and Savonarola hold a conspicuous place. And they have 
essayed, too, to fetch thin echoes from the Fathers; 39eeas 
if these were entitled to rank among the pioneers of Protestant- 
ism because they “protest against superstition, sanctification 
“by works, creature-worship, ecclesiastical priggishness, and 
“alienation.” The Fathers from the first hold fast to the idea 
of the Church. A few isolated snippings from here and there 
may forge a difficulty, but cannot make a real difference as to 
the main point. 

Nor do “ Ullmann’s Legends” about the pre-reformation 
reformers answer their purpose, as even Protestant historians 


THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 167 


consider them exploded. In Wiclif and i as, “who looked 
“down from the vantage-ground of medizx al religious ideas, 
“not a speck of genuine evangelical piety can be detected,” 
Savonarola is the principal representative of beggar-monks,-— 
“a thoroughly medizval institution.” ‘A settled conviction, 
“a concrete picture varied in form and quivering with life, has 
“replaced Ullmarn and Bonnechose’s pale and shadowy 
““spectres—a conviction which establishes Luther’s wonderful 
“originality in developing and discovering new religious ideas, 
“and in carrying out the steps that led up to them.””7 The 
Reformers, therefore, were bent, not on restoring the Apostolic 
Church and doctrine, but on producing a “brand new form of 
Christianity,” in other words, on ‘“unfurling the s**~dard of 
“ democracy against an aristocratic priesthood.” 78 But the old 
forms were as far as possible retained, so that the design might 
be kept secret from the people.79 

Nevertheless those who, like the many American sects, glory 
in turning their back on the past, and in despising a tradition 
in proportion to its antiquity, are comparatively few.89 Rather, 
enlightened Protestants have ever re-echoed the Catholic 
Principle found in the Fathers. On it Kepler based his 
Opposition to the Formula Concordiae and prepared to be 
excommunicated rather than forgo it. The acceptance of 
the article of faith: “we believe in One, Holy, Catholic and 
“Apostolic Church” and “in one baptism for the remission of 
“sins” must gradually entail a profession in the principle of 
historical continuity between the early centuries of Christianity 
and those which follow. It will show, moreover, where we 
are to look for the “source and standard of Christian truth, 
“and also for the established means of grace,” 81 
77. Lobstein, Theol. Liter Zeitung 1887. Nr. 26. Miller, Bertché riber den gLegenwart. 


Stand der Forschung auf dem Gebiete der vorreformat. Zeit. Giessen 18875 
But see also Hase, p. 80 


78 Hase. p. 2906. 

79 Déllinger, Kirche und Kirchen, p. 438» 
80 Déllinger, 7.¢ p. 331. 

81 Scheele, in Zockier. ii. 395. 


168 THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 


Important historical investigations have convinced such 
Protestant historians, as have succeeded in weaning themselves 
from traditional prejudices, that religious life in the middle 
ages developed, on the whole, in a notably ascending scale. 
“The period immediately preceding the Reformation was 
“marked by a flexibility and deep and far-reaching movement 
“in religion, which were the outc me of an inward piety and 
“of religious motives that had been deeply instiiled into the 
“hearts of the people. ‘She religious current began in the 
“upper classes and moved in a downward direction into the 
“masses of the people, whereas, in the history of the Church 
“till the fourth century, it evidently took the opposite course.”8? 

3r.* The British and Northern churcnes were more con- 
servative than other Protestant communities. They retained 
the episcopal system, and considered episcopal succession as 
essential to the Christian Church. But what kind of a 
succession is necessary and essential to the Catholic Church? 
Does succession simply consist in valid orders, no matter how, 
or by whom conferred? Can there be no usurping bishops ? 
Surely succession, in the real and proper sense, implies 
legitimate mission to the office of a bishop. ‘Thus it also implies 
that each bishop was in communion with his predecessor, and 
so on up to the time of the Apostles. Not every sort of 
successor will suffice. But succession must be Afostolic, i.e., 
a man must be a bishop by the will and favour of some 
Apostolic see. Only in this way can the Apostles be said 
to live in their successors. It is precisely by receiving this 
mission and commission from an Apostolic See that the 
genuine successor is distinguished from the usurping bishop. 
Moreover, what is the purpose and reason of the Apostolic 
‘Episcopal! succession? Is it not to maintain the Apostolic 
doctrine and the true means of grace? But if this be so, then 
the Episcopal body existing previous to the Reformation was 
the infallible guardian of the Apostolic doctrines and means of — 


-— 


82 Looss, Theol, Liter. Zeiing. 1837. Nr. 8& 


THE CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 169 


grate. Now if they held the position of infallible guardian, 
there could be no ground whatever for schism and separation. 
If, however, they did not, of what use is Episcopacy, and why 
trouble about Episcopal succession? The Episcopal system, 
maintained in the interest of the principle of Apostolic 
succession, becomes absolutely illogical in any other but the 
Catholic Church. Valid Episcopal orders are necessary, indeed, 
for the successors of the Apostles ; they are a conditio sine gua 
non, where they fail, there can be no Church whatever.®3 
But they alone are not sufficient. They must also be received 
and exercised by the permission and commission of an Apostle; 
in other words, a successor in the real sense of the word must 
have missio Apostolica. 

We, therefore, conclude that the Episcopal system in the 
Anglican and Northern churches, is a mere external frame- 
work, a dead outward symbol of a reality that ought to be, 
but is not ; and their testimony to the necessity of Apostolicity 
tells really in favour of Rome.* 


83 Mohler, Patrologie p. 350: 


* The question of the Apostolic character of the Anglican Church has recently been 
much discussed under the name and form of coxztinuity. Books have been written, 
sermons preached, lectures given, up and down the country. with a view to 
establishing the continuity of the Church of England. But readers will search 
in vain in any one of them for a definition or explanation of the meaning of 
the word. To judge from the proofs brought forward, the continuity consists 
in the fact that there has been from the earliest times a Christian religion in 
the country; or, that there has been uninterruptedly for centuries a church 
consisting of bishops, priests, deacons, and people. From this it is concluded 
that there is continuity in the Church of England. The sophism is too glaring 
to be hid. This kind of continuity is established by aédstract thought; it is 
continuity of the most generic kind, far removed from the real and specific 
continuity proper to an tudiwidual living organism such as the Church must 
be, if itis the Church at all. The proof would be more to the point, if it were 
thus conceived: The Christian Church of England has been, ever since its 
existence, in communication with a Church that is evidently A fostoli¢c ; or, in 
a milder form, has ever been in communion with the Churches spread over the 
world, that have been universally considered as portions of the Catholic Church ; 
or, again, has ever been in communion with its own self i.e., its predecessor ! 
But this proof is not even attempted. Continuity, in this question, szust 
mcan identity, not similarity; identity not of place, but of self, of personal 
seif, that is, it must be identical in body, soul, mind and heart. There must 
be identically the same organic constitution, the same organic connection, the 
same doctrines, the same moral and religious observances. This is real 
continuity. Tr, 


CHAPTER VI. 


{EDDY ClRRON NESE OIE S: 


1. Love unites, selfishness divides It was the all-wise 
Creator’s will that the human race, sprung from one pair, 
should form one great family which, by being united to God 
an 1 among themselves in charity and holiness, should establish 
God’s kingdom on earth and bring all men to eternal happiness 
in union with God, their Father and Creator. But man’s 
selfishness and the devil’s malice have willed and wrought 
otherwise. By hearkening to the suggestions of their enemy, 
and by giving way to selfishness and pride, our first parents 
ruthlessly snapped asunder the bond that linked the Creator 
with the creature. 

The consequences could not be stayed. An evil deed is 
evil seed. It can beget naught but evil results. That is its 
curse, as the poet says.* ‘The first two brothers, Abel and 
Cain, are a standing warning against the evil consequences of 
jealousy. Even the Deluge could not quench man’s selfish 
views and aims. Again men rose up against God. Again 
they lost the tie that united them,—a common knowledge and 
worship of God; and with it they lost their common speech. 
While they were thinking, in the pride of their hearts, to erect 
an everlasting monument to glorify themselves by building the 
Tower of Babel, and thus as it were hurling defiance at the 
Almighty, God came down from heaven, looked at their work, 


® “*Das is der Fluch der bésen That.” 


* THE CHURCH ONE 17 


and threw their speech into confusion, so that no man could 
understand his neighbour. ‘‘ And so the Lord scattered them 
“from that place into all lands.” In belief and thought, in life 
and action as well as in speech, they were divided and split up 
into hostile races, peoples and nations, and scattered abroad 
over all lands. 

2. Nay more, Religion itself, which should have united men 
with the one God and with one another, became a new source 
of dissension, that created a still wider breach between peoples 
and cities. ‘To which of the gods,” asks S. Athanasius, 
“shall we turn, in order to pray to God with confidence, or to 
“stand firm in the knowledge of God. Yor all men have not 
“the same gods; there are as many gods as peoples. Nay the 
“same country, or even the same town often has different gods. 
® The Phoenicians certainly do not acknowledge the Egyptian 
“gods, nor the Egyptians those of Phoenicia, nor do the 
“Scythians worship those of the Persians, nor the Persians 
“those of Scythia. The Pelasgians reject the gods of Thrace, 
‘and the Thracians ignore the Theban. The Indians are 
“ opposed to the Arabians, and the Arabian to the Ethiopian. 
“And so it is with Syria, Cilicia, Cappadocia, Bithynia and 
“ Armenia. Each differs from the other, The dwellers on the 
“Continent differ from those of the Islands. In short, every 
“city and every hamlet, ignoring the gods of its neighbours, 
“ prefers its own and thinks that they alone are gods. Not to 
“sneak of the abominable ceremonies of the Egyptians, which, 
“as every one knows, are most contrary and opposed to one 
“another. . . . In brief, all idolatrous nations wholly 
“differ in their religion and belief ; and it was meet that this 
“should befall them. For, having fallen away from the 
“knowledge of the one God, they rushed headlong into a 
“variety of errors; and when they went astray from the true 
“ Word (Logos) of the Father, their mind was justly carried 
“about by every wind of doctrine. As they who turn away 
“from the sun, find themselves groping about in the dark, 


172 THE CHURCH ONE, 


‘unable to see things that are present, but imagine that they 
“see things that are not, so, in like manner, men who have lost 
“sight of God are struck blind; and being tossed about by 
“their own passions, they become the prey of their wild and 
“deranged imaginations.” 4 

3. And yet God did not forsake the work of His hands. 
The more man severed himself from God, the more steadily 
God was laying out plans for future reunion.  Jirst and 
foremost He established a covenant with His people in the Old 
Testament. The new race was to spring from Abraham, and 
fill the earth. And God appointed circumcision as an outward 
symbol of this covenant, and as a pledge that all who were 
marked by it belonged to God’s one people. And unity was 
knitted. in still closer bonds by the legislation given through 
Moses. God’s unity was the model for the unity of the chosen 
people ; and the rays of political and religious unity converged 
in one visible centre—the Ark of the Covenant and the ‘Temple 
at Jerusalem. : 

4. Outside Israel, too, and owing to its influence, prepara- 
tions were gradually being made for reuniting the peoples of 
the world, ‘Ihe Greeks supplied the language, and the Roman 
Empire the idea. The idea of a universal monarchy, which 
had been the dream of Alexander the Great, was carried into 
effect by the keen practical sense, iron inflexibility, and tenacious 
purpose of the Romans. And they shrewdly pressed Religion 
into their service, not by trampling on the gods of ‘the van- 
quished, but by enthroning them in their Pantheon. ‘The 
“Romans honour all divinities,” says Cecilius in the Dia- 
logue of Minucius Felix,? and he proceeds to descant on the 
blessings that accrue to the Romans from this practice “Thus 
“the Romans have made the whole world their footstool, and 
“extended their dominion to the path of the sun and the 
“bounds of the ocean, by being. god-fearing and virtuous in the 


1 Contra Gentes. c. 23. 
2 Octav. c. 6. 25+ See Arnob. c. Gent, vi. 


THE CHURCH ONE. 173 


“country ; by fortifying a town with holy sacrifices, and chaste 
“‘ virgins, and with many priestly honours and dignities . . . 
“by honouring the gods of the vanquished, giving them hospt- 
“tality, and making them their own ; and finally by erecting 
“altars to unknown gods and infernal powers.” Later on, 
however, Felix discounts his praise, and tears down the mask 
of Roman hypocrisy. Thus, then, did God, by His universal 
Providence, and by Revelation, prepare the way for the worship 
of the one true God in a community spread all over the earth. 

5. This, too, was the burden of the prophecies concerning 
the Messianic Kingdom. A kingdom of righteousness, of 
peace, and happiness, was the noble vision in which the 
Messianic hopes of Israel centred. Strifes and disputes are. 
extinguished, and enemities have vanished like smoke. The 
Assyrian and the Egyptian shall be united with Israel as one 
great confederacy (Isaias x1x), and Israel and Juda shall no 
more make war on one another. “And the envy of Ephraim 
“shall be taken away. . . . Ephraim shall not envy Juda, 
‘and Juda shall not fight against Ephraim.” (Isaias x1. 13.) 
“ And the children of Juda and the children of Israel shall be 
“oathered together, and they shall appoint themselves one 
‘‘head.3 Everywhere, indeed, the imagery is borrowed from 
the old Israel, the land of Canaan, but behind the forms of the 
imagery there appears the new Israel, glimmering with streaks 
of light from the Messianic Kingdom which, heretofore divided, 
shall be united by a king from: David’s royal house. “ And 
“they shall walk in my judgments, and shall keep my com- 
“mandments. . . .” ‘They shall be of one heart and one 
“mind. And I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for 
“ever.” (Ezech. xxxvu. 26.) “And the Lord shall be king 
‘over all the earth. In that day there shall be one Lord, and 
* His name shall be one.” (Zach. XIV. 9). 

6. These promises were fulfilled in Christianity, which is 
the final and absolute revelation. And as the absolute revela- 


8 Os.i.ax. Ezech. xxxvii. 22, 24. See Jerem. iii, 18; xxx. 4.9. Selbst, p. 245- 


174 THE CHURCH ONE, a 


tion is one, so also the Messianic Kingdom is one. Truth is 
one, but falsehood and error are manifold. The kingdom of 
truth, the kingdom of God, the Church must be one. This 
truth, as we have seen, is so clearly and distinctly set 
forth in Holy Scripture, that about the proposition itself 
there can be no doubt. There is ovxe Shepherd and one flock, 
one door, and one sheepfold, ove Father of all believers, 
present and future. There is ove God, one Lord, one faith, 
one baptism. The Church is a great body, with Christ as its 
head; the bride that Christ has prepared for Himself; the 
house of God; the dwelling-place of the Lord. Only those 
who are members of the one body can be united with Christ. 
The unity of the Church goes hand in hand with the unity of 
Christ. As He is one individual being, so is the Church, In 
technical language, hers is a formal unity. She is una and 
unica. ‘This unity is at once a necessary property and a mark 
of the Church. And it is easy to see from Scripture why this 
unity must be set down asa mark of the true Church. For it 
manifests itself in unity of faith and doctrine (Creed), in the 
unity of the means of grace and worship (Liturgy), and in the 
unity of idea and government (Hierarchy) which is indissolubly 
bound up with these. All these factors revealed themselves at 
the very beginning in the Apostolic Church. For Jews and 
Gentiles, under the guidance of the Apostles, were united ina 
brotherhood of faith and charity, and were preserved in the 
unity of Confession and a common worship of God. 

8. The first Pentecost is the first feast of the Church’s 
dedication. As a new creation the Church is the antitype 
of the first creation from chaos, as well as the direct antithesis 
to the confusion of tongues created at Babel. As the Spirit 
once moved over the waters to divide the chaos and evolve 
structures of light, so the Spirit of God moved over the Apostles 
and the faithful to arm them with power from above for the 
new creation in Christ. The work of the spirit Of charity and 
truth can only tend to unite and to sanctify. This effect 


jr Hyer ty ery eee eT 


THE CHURCH ONE, 175 


was seen in a wonderful manner in the gift of tongues, for 
it was a sign that the Spirit who had once thrown speech 
into confusion was now knitting hearts together with an 
indissoluble bond. All that heard were amazed at hearing, 
every man in his own tongue, what the Galileans spake. 
‘Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and inhabitants of 
“Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 
“Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya about 
“Cyrene, and strangers of Rome; Jews also and proselytes, 
“Cretes and Arabians—we have heard them speak in our own 
“tongue the wonderful works of God.” (Acts 11. 7-11). 

9. But it was necessary that this inward union in one faith, 
that had been effected under outward visible signs, should 
also be externally expressed and always be recognizable. This 
was the work of baptism, the sacrament and seal of faith. 
Baptismy is a condition of admission into the kingdom of God, 
and the one baptism is a mark of the one Church. Josephus, 
as we have seen, regarded the baptism of John in the same 
light. And 8S. Augustine says: “There can be no religious 
“society, whether the religion be true or false, without some 
“sacrament or visible symbol to serve as a bond of union. 
“The importance of these sacraments cannot be overstated, 
“and only scoffers will treat them lightly.” 

In addition to baptism there was also the Eucharist (breaking 
of bread) which was likewise a symbol of brotherhood. The 
bread that Jesus blessed at the last supper was owe, and the 
chalice that He consecrated and gave to all to drink was also 
one. ‘Vhe chalice of benediction is the communion of the } 
blood of Christ. And the bread which we break is the 
partaking of the body of Ciirist. “For we, being many, 
“are one bread, ove body, all that partake of one bread.” 
GeGor. 7x16. 217): 

ro. Again, the Spirit was working by means of the Apostles, 


4 Contra Faust. xix. 11. Clark’s (Trl.) Bonav. Sentent. iv. de i, a I+ Qe Be See 
Kellner, aud Kraus, Keal-Euc. ii. 704. 


176 THE CHURCH ONE, 


whose duty and office it was to promote the work of unity. 
S. Paul extols the Gospel above Judaism, because it tore down 
the wall of separation that had hitherto divided the Jews from 
the unclean Gentiles. ‘The mystery of Christ which im other 
“generations was not known to the sons ef men, as it is now 
“revealed to His holy angels and prophets in the Spirit. ,That 
“the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body 
“‘and co-partners of his promise in Christ Jesus by the 
“Gospel.” (Ephes iii. 5. 6). There is no longer Greek nor 
barbarian, master nor slave, man nor woman, for all are equal 
in’ Christ and His Church. ‘Christ is our peace, who hath 
‘‘made both one, and breaking down the middle wall of 
‘partition, the enmities in this flesh, making void the law of 
“commandments contained in decrees; that he meght make 
‘the. two in himself into one new man, making peace, and 
“might reconcile both to God in one body by the cross, killing 
“the enmities in himself. For by Him we have access both ia 
“one spirit to the Father.” (Ephes. ii, 14-18). And therefore 
the Apostle exhorts the Ephesians to keep the unity of the 
spirit in the bond of peace. ‘‘One body, Gne spirit, as you 
‘tare called in one hope’ of your catling.” Dissensions and 
strifes should have no place in churches that are united in 
the same faith and charity. With a serrowful and aching 
heart the Apostle learnt that schisms had arisen at Corinth. 
‘Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or 
‘were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (I Cor. 1. 13). ‘* For 
‘God is not the God of dissension but of peace.” (x1v. 33). 
With still greater earnestness the Apostles raise a note of 
alarm against heresies, which rend asunder the unity of faith. 
As our Lord once warned them against false prophets in sheep’s 
clothing (Matth. vii. 15) so, as a parting request, Paul urged 
the bishops of Ephesus to protect the flock of Christ against 
ravening wolves, who would not spare the flock. In the 
pastoral Epistles his chief concern is to impress on his disciples 
to redouble their watchfulness against false teachers, For 


THE CHURCH ONE, 177 


“the Spirit manifestly saith that in the last times some shall 
“depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error and 
“ doctrines of devils.” (I Tim. Iv. 1). “Shun profane and 
‘vain babblings ; for they grow much towards ungodliness ; 
“and their speech spreadeth like a canker.” (II Tim, 1. 17). 
And S. John, who saw the weeds springing up, laments that 
antichrists lead the faithful astray from Christ. ‘‘ They went 
‘out from us, but they are not of us. For if they had been of 
‘Cus, they would no doubt have remained with us; but that 
‘‘they may be manifest, that they are not all of us.” (1 John 
1. 19). S. Peter, too, lifts up his voice against lying teachers 
who, like the false prophets of the New Testament, “shall 
“bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought 
them > (II Peter 11. 4). 

Whether we take the word “ heresy ” in its proper sense, as 
something special, the sect, the school, or in its derivative sense 
as erroneous doctrine, it is clear that the Apostl.s were caution- 
ing the community against those who preached any doctrine 
other than that of Christ and the Apostles. For there is no 
wisdom besides the one truth, and no living heavenly Church 
but the one body of Christ in charity and holiness. And if 
the schismatic sins against charity, the heretic sins against both 
faith and charity. 

11, From what has been already said about the Church it 
follows that this unity of faith and charity is not confined to 
ihe several communities amongst themselves, but that it 
stretches over the whole Church. Everywhere the same Gospel 
was preached, the same sacraments administered, the same 
mysteries celebrated, the same disciplinary regulations enacted. 
In order to establish and to safeguard unity with the first 
Apostles, S. Paul journeyed repeatedly to Jerusalem. And if 
the inner motive of this unity was belief in God, the Father of 
all, in Christ, the Redeemer of all, and in the Holy Spirit, who 
pours forth grace and charity in all, so its external motive was 
that union of the Apostles amongst themselves which guarantees 


2 I 


178 THE CHURCH ONE. 


that the Church will be governed on the harmonious basis 
of unity in belief and sacraments. The collections made by 
the Gentile Christians for the poor in Jerusalem, were a touch- 
ing testimony and tribute to the brotherly love and unity that 
prevailed among Jews and Gentiles. When discord broke out 
at Antioch, the Church sent Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, 
that, in union with the Apostles and ancients and the whole 
Church, they might put an end to the dispute. The Apostolic 
Counci! was representative of the whole Church, and drew up 
four decress for regulating the ordinary relations of life among 
Jews and Gentiles. . 

i2. The post-Apostolic Church, and above all others the 
Roman Church, has given full expression to her faith in the 
unity of the Apostolate, by her constant use of the baptismal 
confession of faith, called, for that reason, the Apostles’ Creed, 
the twelve articles of which embody forall time the unity of the 
Apostolic faith. As we have already pointed out, the agree- 
ment upon this epitome of Christian belief, was not the result 
of the heresies of the second and third centuries ;5 it existed 
long before. The ancient Roman Symbol goes back to the 


days of S. Jobn, or may be, even to the latter half of the Pauline » 


Era. It was foreshadowed in Matth. xxvull. 19, and it became 
indispensable alike for Baptism and the instruction of the 
people. All who profess the symbol profess substantially the 
faith of the Apostles, and thereby confess that they belong to 
the one Apostolic Church. ‘‘To make war upon the Apostles’ 
‘Creed is to attack the kingdom built on the foundation ofthe 
“ Apostles. Nota stone can be displaced without imperilling 
‘‘the entire structure. Pithy in wording, and imposing in its 
“ srandeur, this symbol has ever been the bond of union among 
“all Christians, as it symbolises the one baptism of Christen 


 dom.,”6 


s Hase, Polem7k, p.11. 
6. Scheele (Caspari), af. Zéeckler, II 393. For further details on the symbolum A fpos- 
tolicum, see Probst, Lehre and Gebet, p. 41 


THE CHURCH ONE. 179 


13. This Symbol of faith, however, could not, in itself, have 
- been a bond of union. It had this effect only in so far as it 
was the profession of faith of a visible community, the Church, 
As it is based on a tradition emanating from the Apostles, so it 
must be proclaimed and preserved by the Church-organs 
appointed by the Apostles, who were to be at the same time 
the dispensers of its Sacraments. Without Apostles there 
would be no Apostles’ Creed; without the successors of the 
Apostles we could have no guarantee that it represents the faith 
of the Apostles. As S. Irenzeus says: ‘“‘As I have already 
“ observed, the Church, having received this preaching and 
“this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, 
“as if occupying but one house, care‘ully preserves it. She 
“also believes these points (of doctrine) just as if she had but 
‘one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims and 
“teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, 
“as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the lan- 
‘“ouages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the 
“traditions is one and the same. For the churches which have 
“been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down any. 
“thing different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor 
“those in the East, nor those in Libya, nor those which have 
“been established in the central regions of the world. But as 
“the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout 
“the whole word, so also the preaching of the truth shineth 
“everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come 
“to a knowledge of the truth Nor will any one of the rulers 
‘Sia the churches. however highly gifted he may be in point 
"of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no 
“one is greater than the master); nor, on the other hand, 
“will he who is deficient in power of expression, inflict injury 
“‘on the tradition 7! om 

It is the Apostolic spirit, the spirit of Christ in the Church, 
that has made the symbol into a principle cf union, It has 


7 I.1x0, 3. (Clark's Tr.) 


180 THE CHURCH ONE. 


been called a veritable “bulwark erected from the beginning 
“by the Spirit of God, who is a ‘iving power in the Church, 
“+o drive off such flighty birds of prey as the Gnostics, and 
“aJso such creeping vermin as the Ebionites.”8 But this 
irapiies that the same Spirit must continue to work jn the 
Church in order to make this symbol an efficient vehicle of 
faith. The darts of heresy would not rebound harmlessly from 
a symbol that had not grown into and out of a living organism. 
A shield avails but little, unless it be held by a warrior. Here- 
tics feared neither Gospel nor symbol; the successors of the 
Apostles alone were able to put them to fight. And when we 
stand rapt in wonder at the marvellous energy displayed by the 
Church in the second century, in the face of heathen brute 
force and heretical craft and duplicity, we should not forget 
that sch power could be developed only in a compactly 
organized Church, whose irresistible night lay in the Apostolic 
succession. It was not the creed weich made the Church or 
her unity, but it was the Church equipped with creed, authority 
and sacraments that established unity in faith and discipline, 
and saved Christendom from being splintered into countless 
Christian and unchristian sects. “An empirical (visible) 
“society cannot be governed by a word, whether wiitten or 
“traditional, but only by men; for the letter will always divide 
«and part.asunder.”? : 

14. ‘This fact did not escape the keen eyes of those who 
were bent on destroying the Christian faith. The Church was 
the enemy. The first thing was to batter down her organization, 
her organic unity. Julian, the apostate foe of Christianity, 
allowed Donatus’ party a free hand to corrupt; he gave back 
the basilicas to heretics, when re-opening the temples to demons; 
thinking to blot out Christianity from the face of the earth, by 
making war on its unity, and putting a premium on schism." 


8 Scheele Z. ¢. p. 394. 
9 Harnack, p. 309. Dollinger, 7. ¢. xxiii. p. 23. 
ro Ef. 105,2.9. Sermo ad Caes. pleb.n. 5. De Unit. Eccl. il. 2 


eo ae 


: oa) ae 


# 


THE CHURCH ONE. r8r 


And here it was made plain to demonstration how little a 
mere formula of faith, even when joined with baptism, can 
accomplish towards welding men into unity. Augustine, 
while recognizing that the Donatists had both, deplored 
their want of unity and charity. Without these the for- 


mula of faith is a pennon flying in the air, not a firmly 


planted standard round which the soldier of Christ can 
rally. None can have this charity, save those who pray in 
unison to the Father in heaven. And if we pray to one 
Father, why should we not acknowledge that we have one 
mother? Let us hold fast to that which is indivisible. 

15. Hence the Fathers of the second century, not with- 
out reason, dovetailed the proof for the Church’s unity 
into the proof for Apostolicity. Bishops, in their eyes, 
are the custodians of ecclesiastical unity, both in their sev- 
eral churches and in the Church at large. Clement warned 
the Corinthians against schism by appealing to the Apos- 
tles. Ignatius is most emphatic in exacting that the unity 
of the Church should be both internal [as in Christ] and 
external, both ideal and real. He regards it as internally 
connected with the Incarnation and the Eucharist. As 
God the Son appeared on earth as a perfect man in order 
to make men the Sons of God, so the faithful must be 
united with Christ both outwardly and inwardly, in the 
spirit and in the flesh, if they are to share in His graces. 
They must believe in his divinity and humanity, in the 
whole Christ, and unite themselves to Him in the Eucha- 
rist. That inward organic unity, which is vividly described 
in the similes under which the Church is pourtrayed" (e.g., 
kingdom of God, house of the Father, living temple of God, 
body of Christ) is necessary indeed, but cannot subsist with- 
out external unity. Rather the faithful are bidden to be all 
one heart, one body, to eschew all parties ani divisions, 
so that when they meet together to worship God, it may 
be ‘‘one prayer, one petition, one heart, one hope and 


11 Ad Ephes.c.5. Ad Magn.c.t. . 


182 THE CHURCH ONE, 


“charity and unsullied joy.” “Brethren, be not deceived ; 
“if a man associate with a schismatic, he has no part in the 
“kingdom of God; and if he walk in any other opinion, he 
“is excluded from benefitting by the sufferings of Christ.” 
Such ecclesiastical unity, however, can only be bought by 


obedience to the bishop, in the same way as Christ, according” 


to the flesh, was obedient to His Father, and the Apostles 
were obedient to Christ, and the Father, and the Spirit; ‘‘so 
“that unity may be corporal as well as spiritual.”!2 The 
bishop is the depositary of unity in the community, and the 
body of bishops in the Church at large. He who is in union 


with the bishop, is a child of the Church of God. Without ° 


bishop, priest and deacon, who bring the people together to 
serve God in common, Ignatius is perfectly at a loss to 
conceive a Church, “Bestir yourselves, therefore, to receive 
“one Eucharist. For there is only one flesh of our Lord Jesus 
“Christ ; one chalice whereby we are united with his blood ; 
“and one altar of sacrifice ; just as there is but one bishop, 
“with priests and deacons, my fellow servants; so that what 
“ye do, you may do in God.”}8 

He who is at one with the bishop, is in union with the whole 
Church, which is Christ’s body. And as each bishop is the 
visible head of his own Church, so Christ is the invisible head 
of the whole Church. ‘He who partakes of the Eucharist 
consecrated by the bishop, partakes of the life of grace that 
courses through the body of Christ. And as Christ, at His 
last supper, commanded the Apostles to do what He had done, 
so it is by them and their successors that communication 
with Christ and His Church is maintained and nourished. As 
the God-man died for all men, so His Church must contain 
in a visible and spiritual unity all men of good will. ‘‘ Where 
“the bishop is, there also should be the people, just as the 
“Catholic Church is, where Jesus Christ is.” In like manner, 


rz Ad Philad.c. 3. Magn. c. 6. Efhes. c. 16. 
13 4d Trall.c. 3% Philad.c. 4 Cf. Smyre. c. 8 2. Martyr. Polyc. 16. 23 19 2% 


& 
* 


ood it 


7” sa 4 


THE CHURCH ONE. Laakos 


the author of the Martyrium S. Polycarpi, while styling 
Polycarp bishop of the Catholic Church at Smyrna, de- 
clares that above him is ‘‘our Lord Jesus Christ, the 
‘‘ Saviour of our souls and the Shepherd of the Catholic 
‘Church spread all over the world.’’ And as the Church 
at Smyrna was certainly real and visible, so certain is it 
that Ignatius and the author of the dZartyrium must also 
have had in mind a real and visible Church, extending 
all over the world, the unity of which was both symbolized 
and caused by the unity of the Catholic bishops. 

16. Hegesippus, who was the first to attempt a dogmatic 
and historical proof for the unity of the whole Church, 
states, as the result of his travels and enquiries, that the 
bishops of the different Churches profess one and the 
same Apostolic faith, which they had inherited in unbroken 
succession from the Apostles, ‘‘in each succession of 
‘‘ bishops, and in each town, that endures which the Law 
‘and the prophets and the Lord enjoin.’’* While stating 
that heresies arose after the first Apostolic generation had 


passed away, he gives his idea of the Church. ‘‘ Hence 
‘‘ they called the Church a virgin, because she had not yet 
‘‘been contaminated by foolish words [doctrines].’’ Her- 


etics were the first to ‘‘ rend the Church’s unity by teach- 
‘‘ ing corrupt doctrines about God and His Christ.’’ Unity 
is only to be found with the bishops. Let any one ques- 
tion them all, and he will find that they all agree. 

And even if some Fathers do not speak in so many words 
of the hierarchical constitution of the Church, there is noth- 
ing to show that they had any doubt about it. On the 
contrary, it is implied in the Church’s compact member- 
ship and common worship. This is clear from the fact 
that later Fathers, Amédrose for instance, whose minds 
were never crossed by a doubt about Episcopal unity, 
lay special stress on unity in faith and charity. /wstin 
says that the believers are one soul, one community, one 


14 Euseb iv. 30. 2, 


184 THE CHURCH ONE, 


Church, because they form one body. eras likens the Church 
to a tower, the stones of which are so closely fitted one into the 
other, that it seems to be a monolith. For the faithful that 
have been admitted into the Church dwell together in the most 
complete unity ; they form one body with one spirit, one mind, 
one faith, one charity. All stones in the tower shine with equal 
brilliancy.!5 But this can only be when all are illumined by the 
same faith and set on fire by the same charity. Still each stone 
in the tower occupies the position that suits it. For this reason 
other Fathers give prominence to the other side of the building, 
and exhibit the diversity in unity, viewing organization as the 
ground-work, ‘One Church, over the whole world, is divided 
“into many members, and the rays of one Episcopate are 
“scattered in harmony among many bishops.” The Catholic 
“Church is one, knitted together by the bond of priests 
(Bishops), says S. Cyprian. 

17. Heresies also bear testimony to this two-fold unity of 
the Church,—unity in faith and in the Episcopate. They are 
more recent than the Church, and the brand of error and inno- 
vation is stamped on their brow; for antiquity and apostolic 
succession are marks of the true Church.!’” Whence came they ? 
They went forth from the one Church, the one tree which 
Christ planted. They are as branches dropped off and withered. 
They are brooks diverted from the one source of living water, 
and running along the sands. Could we wish for better wit- 
nesses to the Church’s original unity ?!8 If Novatian has cut 
himself adrift from the Church, this one fact debars men from 
any longer listening to his teaching. ‘‘ Whoever he may be, he 
“is not Christ if he be not in Christ’s Church.” ‘If there 
‘were no Church in Donatus’ time, whence canfe he? From 
“what sea did he emerge? From what heaven did he drop e”'® 
15 Justin., Dial.c. Tryph. c. 63.42, Herm., Visio iii. c. 2.5. Sineib. ix. 15. 18 
16 Epist. 52, 243 69,8. See Schwane, II. 32. 

17 See Bellarm, Tom. II. 1. ii. 4, s. Tournely, p. 34 - 


18 Clem. Alex. Strom. vii.17. Aug., Sermzo 46, 8,18. FEfist. 44. 
19. Cypr. Ep. 55,24. Aug., De Bapt. c. Don. 3,2. Contra Crese. 2, 35 


‘ 


THE CHURCH ONE. 185 


And they are in this sorry plight, not merely because they 
have fallen away from the Church, but also because on 
their side they are ever at variance one with another, and 
are utterly incompetent to preserve unity even in a narrow 
- sphere. 

The multitude of heresies, each arrogating to itself the 
name Christian, often gave a handle to Jews and pagans 
to point the finger of scorn at Christ, and deterred those 
who were on the road to conversion from taking the step. 
Celsus twitted Christians with being divided into innumer- 
able sects. To this taunt the Fathers made a twofold 
reply. They represented schism, which the Apostles had 
foreseen and foretold, as natural, and at the same time 
salutary for the body of the Church; and they proved 
that the errors and discussion rife among heretics were 
the-consequence of their apostasy. The many sects sup- 
ply a proof for the true Church, for the Apostle says: 
Oportet hereses esse: there must needs be heresies.”” . And 
they also prognosticate that the end of the world is near, 
for Christ said that these things must then come to pass. 
Philosophers and physicians were divided into different 
schools ; and yet philosophy and medicine did not cease 
to be regarded as sciences, but rather a spurt was given to 
them. So, in like manner, the Church does not cease to 
be true because heretics have revolted, but she triumphs 
over all. For, says S. Hilary, “‘ all, indeed, array them- 
‘selves in hostility to the Church, but as all heretics fly at 
‘“one another’s throats, they derive no benefit from their 
“victory. For by their victory the Church triumphs over 
‘‘all, because one heresy contends against another for 
‘‘ what the faith of the Church condemns.”* And what has 
been, stillis. The Church is represented with every possible 
and impossible error: with Rationalism, Pelagianism, with 
the teaching of Sanctification by works, with Laxity, with 
Rigorism and Mysticism. All this only goes to show that 


20 I Cor. xi. 18.19. II Tim. iii. 1-9. Just. Dialog. c. 35. Tertull. De Praescr. c. 4. 
Hom. Clem. 16, 21. Cypr. De Unit. c. 10.16. Aug. Ef. 185. Clem. Alex. 
Strom. vii. 15. Orig. c. Cels. ili. 123 v. 62. See Mohler, Patro/. p. 457. 
ax De Trin. vii. 4. Cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 16. 


186 THE CHURCH ONE. 


the Church posesses the one undivided truth, of which the 
sects and philosophic schools have, by whim and caprice, 
elected to retain a few fragments. Weeds grow up among 
the garden plants; but the gardener therefore does not cease 
to tend and cultivate his garden. The king’s highway is safe ; 
other roads and byeways lead to error. “And therefore we 
“maintain that the ancient Catholic Church is in itself one, 
“both in being and conception, in origin and in rank,”?? 
Heresies must ever grow in number, and be riven more and 
more asunder into sects, in order to set their antagonism to the 
one true Church in a clearer light. And as they arbitrarily 
seceded from their one mother, and called themselves after their 
founders, and thereby proclaimed that they differed from the 
whole Christian Church, so, again, their followers go still 
further apart; for where authority is wanting, an arbitrary 
principle irnpels to division and dissolution. ‘‘ What is allow- 
“able to Valentinus, is allowable also to his followers ; and the 
‘“’ Marcionites claim the same privilege.”*4 The evil one who 
invented heresies and schisms, in order to entrap the unwary by 
the name of Christian, keeps ever alive the same spirit of 
division. Heretics scatter with the devil, because they 
gather not with us. They wait till the people are asleep and 
then sow their deadly poisons to reap a harvest of death. 
Heretics were invented to undermine the faith, to corrupt 
truth, and to cleave unity in twain. By this means the devil 
hoped to destroy the Church, as philosophy was destroyed 
through its many sects.2® But the precise contrary happened, 
because a stronger than he came, and despoiled him of his 
armour. The more multiform heresy became, the more the one 
undivided truth gained in lustre,—that Catholic truth which 
they possess to whom our Lord said: “Thou art Peter, bd 


a2 Clem. 2 ¢.17. Mahler, 2. ¢ p. 458. 

23. Just., Dia/.c. 35. Iren. i. 23, 4. Athan., Serv. I. ¢. Ar. Cee 

24 Tertull., De Praescr.c. 42. Cf. Tournely, p 51. 

as. Aug., De Civ. xviii. 51. Cypr., De Unit. c. 3- Ep. 69, 8- Cf. Ep. 27. 43- 59- Ambrose, 
Ep. 14.1. Aug. Sermo 14, 9-7 5 295) 4 


THE CHURCH ONE, 187 


_ “Feed my sheep”: “ As the Father hath sent me, I also send 
you.” . 

18. With a view to making the proof still more complete, 
we will summarize S. Cyprian’s argument for unity. For there 
can be no doubt that he has fully and entirely taught and 
explained the unity of the Catholic Church in doctrine, morals 
and discipline. Did he not expressly point to the unity of the 
Episcopate, and to the unity of the Church that springs from 
the union of the bishops with the Roman See? The Lord, he 
says, in order to manifest the beacon light of unity, set up one 
cathedra, and by his authority instituted the source of that 
unity, which begins with one. The other Apostles were also 
what Peter was, having a like partnership of honour and power ; 
but the beginning goes forth from unity, and the primacy was 
given to Peter to show that there is one Church of Christ and 
one Cathedra. All are shepherds, and the flock to be fed by all 
the Apostles in harmony is indicated as one, to show that the 
Church of Christ is one. This unity we must uphold and 
defend with all our might and main, especially we bishops 
who hold the first places in the Church; so that the Episcopate 
may be shewn to be one and undivided. ‘There is one 
Episcopate, in which all whe are in union with the whole 
(in solidum pars tenetur) have a share. There is one Church 
which, by bearing fruit, becomes many. 

As in the sun there are many rays but only one light; as 
the branches on the tree are many but the force is one, and 
they all spring from the root; as many brooklets flow from 
One source, and maintain unity in origin; so the tight that 
streams from the Lord to the Church diffuses its rays all over 
the earth; and yet the light that is scattered everywhere is one, 
nor is the unity of the body divided. It spreads its branches 
over the whole earth owing to its richness and fertility, and 
Cuts out wider channels for the brooklet; but the head, the 
origin, and the mother are one. The Church is never divided 
from Christ (John vi. 67), and the Church is formed by the 


188 THE CHURCH ONE. 


people in union with the bishop, and the flock in dependence 
on the shepherd. The bishop is in the Church, and the 
Church in the bishop. He who is not with the bishop, neither 
is he in the Church. In vain those who are not at peace 
with the priests roam about, thinking they are secretly in 
fellowship ; for the Church that is Catholic and one, is not 
divided, but most certainly united in the priests, who are built 
up into a unity. 

Even when engaged in a brief but severe contest with the 
occupant of the Roman See, ke weuld not seperate from 
unity, but persevered in communion with those whom he was 
combating; for he was convinced that unity was the first and 
foremost point to be guarded. He who falls away from it, 
severs himself from truth and faith, and from Christ’s body. 
S. Augustine thinks that great credit is due to S. Cyprian on 
this score, and he sees in it a reason for passing a more lenient 
judgment on his conduct in the controversy about heretical 
baptism, ‘For it is no small proof cf a most peac:ful soul, 
“that he won the crown of matyrdom in that unity from which 
“he would not separate, even though he differed from it. For 
‘we are but men; and it is therefore a temptation incident 
to men that we should hold views at variance with the truth 
“on any point. But to come through too great love of our 
“own opinion, or threugh jealousy of our betters, even to the 
“sacrilege of dividing the coramunion of the Church, and of 
“founding heresy or schism, is a presumption worthy of the 
“deyil.”26 Even if history had not recorded the fact, we 
should have been perfectly convinced that the holy martyr 
shed his blood in the unity and peace of holy Church. For 
these words were often on his lips: ‘‘ We have in all patience 
“and gentleness kept charity in heart, honour in discourse, the 
“bond of faith, and the unity of the priesthood.” He gave 
a solemn assurance that he had not entered into dispute, in 
the interests of heretics, with his colleagues in the Episcopate, 


86 De Bapt. c. Donat. ii 5, (Clark's Tr. B. II. chap. v. 6). Cypr. Zp. 70. 71. 73s 


THE CHURCH ONE. 189 


with whom he remains in the unity of God and the peace 
of the Lord. 

19. The disputes in Africa were confined within a nar- 
rower range and had a still narrower influence. But the 
fundamental propositions by which they are tested contain 
all the elements in the idea of ecclesiastical unity. Cyprian 
and Augustine, like Tertullian before them, could never 
havégained such an easy victory over this faction, how- 
ever little, if this idea had not been part and parcel of the 
Church since the days of the Apostles. Could it have 
been branded as a monstrosity that the whole Church 
should follow a clique in Africa, unless heretics had ac- 
knowledged the cohesion and unity of all churches? Still 
the Donatist schism was not too small to make itself felt 
far and wide in the African Church. About the year 300 
A.D., two hundred and seventy schismatical bishops as- 
sembled in Synod. S. Augustine had still to bear the 
brunt of a severe and prolonged struggle with the Dona- 
tists, who only disappeared from Africa when Christianity 
itself, to the ruin of which they had largely contributed, 
began to disappear. 

Nevertheless $. Augustine was never shaken in his 
faith. For he knew that the Church, as represented by 
the bishops, had existed long before the Donatists, and 
that as one Church it reached back to the Apostles. He 
who tears himself away from this unity forsakes Christ. 
They trust in God’s promises who lean for support on him 
who sits in the Chair. For the whole Christian world, 
both on land and over the seas, and even the more impor- 
tant Churches in Africa are united with him. Nor was 
Augustine unaware that side by side with the orthodox 
Nicene Church the Arian had reared its crested head ; that 
the Ebionite, Gnostic, Sabellian and Nestorian heresies _ 
were spreading alongside the true Church of the God-man. | 
The world, as Jerome remarked on the Arian Synods, one 
morning awoke in astonishment at finding itself Arian. 
Thus Augustine had ample opportunity not only of de- 
tecting the poison that lay concealed in these heresies, 
but also of observing the feebleness and sterility of 


190 THE CHURCH ONE. 


the sects that had cast themselves off from the one Church 
Although the German tribes first became acquainted with 
Christianity in its Arian form, they did not succeed in dragging 
the Western Church along with them, but were themselves 
gradually absorbed into its bosom. In the East the sects 
eked out a long and painful existence. But far from being 
an argument against the Church’s unity, they are a terrible 
example of the chastisements that await those who forsake 
it. ‘One mother, pride, has begotten them, just as one 
“mother, the Catholic Church, begets all Christians scattered 
“ over the world. It is, therefore, no wonder if pride begets 
“ division, and love unity. The Church is like a vine spreading 
“its branches; the sects are like useless branches lopped 
“off by the pruner on account of their sterility, so that the vine 
“may be recognized, not that itself may be mutilated.” 

S. Augustine wrote a short tractate on heresies, in which 
he marks the points cf contrast between “Pride” and “Charity,” 
in order to show Christians what they must guard against. He 
enumerated eighty-eight heresies. S. Jerome says: “The 
“welfare of the Church depends on the dignity of its chief 
“priest. Unless we see him to be invested with special and 
“extraordinary powers, there will be as many schisms in the 
“ Church as there are priests” After the Council of Chalcedon, 
S, Leo wrote that it must now be as clear as daylight not only 
to the bishops but also to Christian princes and to clerics 
and laics of all grades, that the faith which he preached, as 
he received it, free from all contagion of error, and defended 
with the applause of the whole world, was the true Apostolic 
and Catholic faith; whereas those doctrines are blotted out 
from the face of the earth, which the early heretics or their 
successors with variegated mendacity, but with unvarying 
godlessness dared to forge.” 

With the /ater divisions of the Church, however, the case 


27 Sermo 46, 8, 18. C. Zpist. Parm. i. 3. 
28 Hieron. Adv. Lucif n. 9 Leo M. Zfist. 102. a 


THE CHURCH ONE, Ig! 


would seem to be different. The schism between East and 
West, whether we consider it in its nature, its causes, or its 
extent in time and space, seems to present special difficulties 
against the unity of the Church. Here it cannot be said that only 
a few twigs were lopped from the one great trunk. The trunk 
itself seemed to have split in twain. A great and lasting chasm 
opened between what had hitherto been two main portions 
of the Church. And this for causes so small and insignificant 
that one is amazed at the disproportion between cause and 
effect. Did not, asks Hase, difference of opinion and custom 
about a little leaven, suffice in the eleventh century, to Separate 
for ever the Churches of East and West??? Still this gigantic and 
violent separation could not have been due to a difference in 
regard to leavened bread, which Rome, for the rest, recognized 
and allowed; nor, again, was it due to deeper Cogmatic differ- 
ences, such as the /i/dogue, and the doctrine concerning the 
dead and purgatory. The causes were far more political than 
religious. The national antagonism between New and Old 
Rome had by degrees become so pronounced, that the final 
breach was but a question of time. A few contentious and 
ambitious patriarchs were all that was required to accomplish it. 

The repeated attempts at reunion, instructive as they other- 
wise are for our present question of unity, were foredoomed to 
failure, because being prompted merely by the needs of the hour, 
they could not allay the old national antipathy and jealousy. 
Eugenius IV., when he thought that the union, brought about 
by so much toil, was assured, sent forth a clear clarion sound of 
jubilation; but there was no echo in response. The pope showed 
how anxious the West were for re-union, although they were not 
in such immediate danger from the iu:ks as the Greeks were. 
A mother rejoices wnen the children that have gone astray 
return, just as the good shepherd carries the lost sheep on 
his shoulder back to the flock, and calls together his friends 
to rejcice (Luke xv. 6). But the Greek Church became 


@9 Hase, p. xt. 


192 THE CHURCH ONE, 


hardened in resentment. The Byzantines preferred to be Turks 
rather than Roman Catholics, and their wish was gratified. 
But what were the consequences and the c.sts of the separation? 
‘The Greek Church became more enslaved than ever. Stiff 
and lifeless it confined itself within its limits; and even 
within this narrow range it had all losses and no gains. The 
Russian Church split up into a multitude of sects, with Nihilism 
gnawing at its entrails ; and it would long since have crumbled 
to pieces, had not the secular power held the heterogeneous 
elements together. These sects and separatist communities, 
moreover, cannot be combated and subdued by spiritual and 
ecclesiastical means; for the Russo-Greek Church has none 
such. ‘There is neither preaching nor science, consequently, 
tnose many different sects constitute a grave danger to the 
State itselt. Only a leader of ability is required to convert 
them into an engine of political revolution.°° Are we wrong 
then in saying that the Greek Church has cut herself adrift 
from the living rock of unity, and been dashed to pieces? 
And yet the Greeks have an Episcopal organization and con- 
stitution, together wth the sacramental means of grace. They 
have the framework of the Apostolate, without its life-giving 
spirit.* 

21. The Papal Schisms in the twelfth, thirteenth, and 


3e See Dollinger, Kirche, p. 5. 170. 185. 

* The Greek Church, or rather Churches, believe, both theoretically and practically, in 
seven Sacraments. They have valid orders, that is, real bishops and priests. 
Hence they can valzd/y administer the Sacraments, though such administration is 
illicit, because in opposition to the Apostolic See. Mussie Afostolica, which 
is something over and above valid crders, is absolutely essential for the legitimate 
Gispensation of the means of grace which belong to the Apostolic Church, and 
to her alone. But the Sacrament of Penance forms an exception; it admits of 
no distinction between valid and licit administration, for the simple reason that it 
requires positive jurisdiction or judicial power which can only come from the — 
Apostolic See. Those who are separated from the Apostolic See, by the very fact, 
lose all jurisdiction, and all claim to the AZ/ss7o A fostolica. Hence it is impossible 
for them to administer the Sacrament of Penance validly. Only in a ¢iculo 
mortis can they do so, because in that case the Church supplies jurisdiction 
to all real priests. 

may be well to add a word on the subject of the Easiern schism in relation to 
Catholic unity. It is usual among a certain section of Englishmen to speak of 
a divided and an undivided Church. They mean to say that before the separation 
of East and West the Church was undivided, and one, but that since the separation 


I 


co 


THE CHURCH ONE. 193 


fourteenth centuries seriously imperilled fora time the Church’s 
unity, and caused the faith of many to totter; but no one 
dreamed that the schism was to be permanent. All weve 
agreed that there could be but one Church, one organic body, 
one head, and that the Bishop of Rome and he alone was 
tl.e head of the Church. But thére was a doubt and disagree 
ment as to who was the legitimate Bishop of Rome, and in 
what way the claims of the several competitors could be settled. 
When there were two or even three popes in the field, it is 
quite intelligible how well-meaning scholars came to hold the 
opinion that the General Council was above the pope. To 
them it seemed necessary that all other interests should be 
made subordinate to the highest possible end, viz., the peace 
and unity of the Church. The unity of the Church was now 
on its trial. But even the difficulties of this period were 
surmounted. The Church’s unity withstuod the severe test 
to which it was put in its visible head. And not only was its 
spiritual life uncrushed, but it soon welled forth again with 
fresh vigour and increased luxuriance. 

22, There remains one more wound to probe, which is still 
smarting. We mean the divisions caused by the Reformation 
in the 16th century. A variety of circumstances in Church and 
State, in the scientific world and in society, had set a peculiar 

she is divided and has consequently ceased to be one, and that she will not be one 
again, until these divisions have been healed by the reunion of Christendom. ‘This 
reunion, they think, would consist in a compromise effected by men of wisdom and 
goodwill. As a matter of course, this view implies that the several separated 
communities are so many equal parts and portions of the one Church, from which 
they have been detached by sheer accident. But according to the Catholic, and we 
may say the rational view, the Church can never, at any time, be divided or cease 
to be one. To be divided would be to cease to exist altogether; for unity is 
as necessary to her as existence. Schisms will diminish her bulk and size but 
cannot impair her organism or any of its functions. The division therefore is 
purciy material, not formal. The continuous existence of the one undivided 
Church is the necessary postulate both of schism and of reumen. Both would 
be inconceivable without it. The loss of the Eastern Church does not even amount 
to the loss of a limb in the natural body. For it does not constitute a mutilation of 
the Church, which, though smaller in bulk and size, remains whole and perfect 
and one for ever. The nearest and only approach to a divided Church is a 
Papal schism, in which there are apparently two complete organic bodies. If 


such a schism, with two doubtful Popes, were to becyme permanent, the unity 
of the Church would be destroyed. Tr. 


194 THE CHURCH ONE. 


stamp on the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th 
centuries, and thus prepared the way for a revolution in ideas 
and things. A new era had dawned. And though the discovery 
of America and the sea route to East India opened out new 
fields for the Church’s missionary energy, yet in her old domain 
she was sorely tried by the defection which issued in the 
Reformation. It seemed as if the one rock of Christ was 
to split at last. For the new learning, besides bringing into 
play various national, political, and social motives, constituted 
a complete breach, not merely with Church authority, but with 
the whole learning of the past. And still the Church has 
emerged from the ordeal, victorious. Her unity was saved, and 
even strengthened and consolidated. Christians severed from 
the Church by the Eastern Schism and the Reformation are, it 
is true, nearly as numerous as Catholics ; but he who runs. may 
easily see where stands the seat of unity of doctrine, discipline, 
worship and government. In recent times this unity is asserting 
itself in a marked manner. From the very first, other 
confessions have only been united negatively, that is by a. 
common hatred and antagonism to Rome and every thing 
Catholic. Beyond this they have had no inner or outer bond 
of unity. Neither have they the means to resist further 
disintegration. Luther complained of the universal dismember- 
ment and dissolutiga. Subsequently there was a veritable 
plague of sects. Nowadays it is barely possible to catalogue all 
denominations,*! 

The unity that has ever been so highly prized in Holy 
Scriptures and the writings of the Fathers can even now 
be found nowhere but in the Catholic Church. Despite the 
as-aults of science and social ravages she, and she alone, has 
-shewn herself a match for all, and kept her phalanx solid and 
unbroken. The unity of all mankind is now the dream and 
ideal of the distant future ; but the Catholic Church realized it 


gr See Mohler, Symzborik, p. 455. Hefele, 7heol. Quartalschr. 1845, p. 186. Dollinger, 
p. 190. Janssen, tveschichte des deutschen Volkes, 11. 364-390. 
‘ 


THE CHURCH ONE. 195 


long ago. She has preserved and defended her unity as a 
legacy from the Apostles. Is unity, indced, to remain a mere 
ideal, a mere possibility? Even the Reformers thought 
differently. They, too, aspired to a real and not merely 
an ideal unity. The Confession of Augsburg teaches “that 
“the one holy Church must endure for all time; it is the 
‘assembly of believers to whom the Gospel has been preached 
“in its purity, and the sacraments of the Gospel administered.” 
This statement is, however, tempered by the rider that it is 
sufficient for true unity if men are agreed on teaching the 
Gospel and dispensing the Sacraments, and that it is not 
necessary to receive human traditions, or rites and ceremonies 
ordained of men. But, after all, it is recognized that real 
unity is a necessity. Where, then, is it to be found? What 
real unity is there in the different national churches, in the 
variety of ever increasing sects? Do they agree in any other 
essential points, such as Holy Scriptura and the Sacraments ? 
All denominations have Holy Scripture in common with the 
Catholic Church. But to what different uses it was put by the 
Reformers! How does the question stand now as regards 
its authenticity and inspiration? Is it not a fact that the 
Reformed Churches have lately been riven asunder on these 
points? Again, as to the Sacraments. Baptism and the 
Eucharist are the only sacraments left in common; but even 
here what a confusion of tongues prevails! Should not Christ 
really have taken better measures for safeguarding the unity of 
doctrine and sacraments in His Church? Surely the decision 
must rest with antiquity and the entire living Church of the 
past. The different theological schools, such as Thomists, 
Scotists, and Molinists existing in the Catholic Church, furnish 
no ground for a retort. For there is no parity whatever. These 
schools rest one and all on the same basis of faith, namely the 
authoritative teaching of the Church. Their unity of faith is 
assured in the future as in the present. They enjoy the 


32 I.7. Afol.c. 4. De Eccl. p. 14% 


196 THE CHURCH ONE. 


freed:m of speculation within certain well-defined limits ; it is 
not the freedom to roam and blunder ad “ditum, but the 
freedom of truth, the freedom of children, wherewith the Son 
of God has made us free in His kingdom of truth. 

And if we pass over from the external unity of faith to the 
internal, so far as it comes within the competency of man 
to form a judgment at all, we may, without being guilty of 
presumption, confidently maintain that the unity of internal 
faith is nowhere so strong as in the Catholic Church. When 
Hase gives it as his opinion that there are few educated 
Catholics who would not be ashamed to confess their belief in 
papal infallibility, he draws his knowledge only from the 
poisoned wells of the Old Catholics. The last decade must 
have convinced him that he was wrong. 

With justice the Vatican Council could say ‘‘No one is 
“jonorant that the heresies proscribed by the Fathers of Trent, 
“by which the divine magisterium of the Church was rejected, 
“and all matters regarding religion were surrendered to the 
‘judgment of each individual, gradually became dissolved into 
‘many sects, which disagreed and contended with one another, 
“until at length not a few lost all faith in Christ. Even the 
‘Holy Scriptures which had previously been declared the sole 
“source and judge of Christian doctrine, began to be held 
“no longer as divine, but to be ranked among the fictions 
“of mythology.” 

How many are there still who will swear with full con- 
viction on articles of faith or on symbolical books? But 
does not truth transcend unity? Verily. So far, however, are 
Catholics from setting unity above truth that they steadfastly 
beheve that truth is to be found only in unity, because 
truth is one, as Christ and God are one. So long as 
Christianity passes for a divinely revealed religion, its truth 
cannot be guaranteed by the fallible reason of individuals, 
but only by the Spirit of God speaking through the divinely 


33 Vat. Council. Dogm. Constit. on Cath. Faith (Card. Manning’s translation). 


THE CHURCH ONE. 197 


ordained organs of the one Church. Of course according 
to the mind of Luther,—and the opinion has since become 


traditional in the Lutheran Church,—pastors are a necessary 
evil for “simple folk,” and their abolition is an ideal to 
be aimed at. Nevertheless there are many Protestants who 


look upon this opinion with anxious and grave apprehensions.*4 


34 Achelis, Theol. Lit. Zig. 1887, Nr. 25. col. 609+ 


CHAPTER VII, 


THE-GHURGH: CAMRAODIG 


r. Unity gains in importance, as a mark of the Church, the 
further the Church extends in space and time. When the 
mark of Catholicity is joined to that of unity, the proof for 
the true Church grows in evidence and clearness. The one 
Church is catholic, inasmuch as she is everywhere. She exists 
at all times and in all places. In the words of S. Augustine: 
‘Catholic unity has encompassed the earth.” 

The word Catholic, indeed, but not the thing it signifies, is 
foreign to Scripture. It was to the prophecies which foretold 
that in Messianic times all peoples should be united,! that the 
Apostles appealed in order to justify the universality of 
Christianity. The Gospel was to be preached to the Jews 
first; when they rejected it, S. Paul turned to the heathen. 
And how numerous were the churches which, in a short time, 
he established in the Roman empire! ‘Their sound has gone 
‘forth to all lands, and their words to the ends of the earth.” 
The Fathers loved to dwell on these prophecies of an universal 
empire embracing all peoples, of one temple for all nations, of 
one sacrifice to be offered to God in every place.? For thus 
they sought to show that the Catholic Church in spreading 
itself over the whole world was doing God’s will and was 

‘consequently the true Church. Heretics and schismatics who 
recognized the Holy Scriptures, found in these prophecies an 


x. Is. xi. 10; xlv. 22, 233 xlix. 1. 63 Iv. 1-5: Ivi. a-83 Ixvi. x seq. For further 
Literature on the subject see Selbst, p. 272 seq. 


a. Mal.i.a1. See also Voctr. Afost. (Didache) c. 14. 


THE CHURCH CATHOLIC. 199 


argument against themselves, which they found it difficult to 
answer. They could not bring themselves to take refuge in an 
invisible Church, because this seemed to be foregoing their 
claim to be the true Church. If the Church of Donatus was 
the true Catholic Church, the Catholic Church would have 
been confined to a narrow strip of Africa. How, in that case, 
had the prophecies been fulfilled ¢ 
In the parables of the mustard seed and the marriage feast, 
Jesus clearly foretold that His Church would cover the earth, 
and that all peoples would be united in one religious body. 
He represented Himselt as the good shepherd going in quest 
of other sheep, and praying for all who in future would believe 
in Elim. And He charged the Apostles to teach and to baptize 
all nations, and to be His witnesses to the ends of the earth. 
2. The word “Catholic” would naturally suggest itself after 
the Church had begun to spread over several countries, after 
separatist movements had been set en foot, when it became 
necessary to contrast the whole with the parts. It is first 
met with in the Epistles of S. Ignatius. After exhorting the 
faithful to obey the bishop, and vigorously warning them 
against schisra, the Saint declares that ‘where the bishop 1s, 
“there also the people should be, as where Christ Jesus 1s, 
“there also is the Catholic Church.”8 The author of the 
martyrdom of S. Polycarp (A.D. 155) relates that the Church of 
Smyrna sent the following account to the Church of Philomelium 
in Phrygia, and to all the parishes of the holy Catholic Church 
in all parts: ‘ He (Polycarp) had ended the prayer in which he 
“made commemoration of all who had ever conversed with 
“him, of the little and great, the illustrious and the unknown, 
“and of the whole Catholic Church spread all over the world, 
“&e.24 While designating Polycarp bishop of the Cadholtc 
Church in Smyrna, he is aware that there is a world-wide 
Catholic Church, subject to our Lord Jesus Christ, the bishop 


3 Ad Smyrn. c. 8. 2. 
4 Martyr. Polyc. 8,1; 16, 23 IQ, 2 


200 THE CHURCH CATHOLIC, 


of souls. So he regards every local Church as a part of the 
universal or Catholic Church, and for this reason the local 
Church itself as Catholic. Thus the word Catholic denotes one 
who belongs to the great Church, and is orginally connected 
therewith, in contradist’nction to the sects or separate com- 
munions which are cal’ed after their founders. 


3. The #ragmentum ALurator, from the indications furnished 
by its author, belongs approximately to the time of Pope Pius L. 


(140-155). At all events it may be taken as giving expression 
in simple catechetical form to the universal belief of the Roman 
Church at the time of its compilation. Now this fragment 
considers the Church’s unity and Catholicity in their relation 
to the sacred Scriptures, and to the Church’s organic con- 
stitution. For it observes that the Gospels, though different, 
exercise no injurious influence upon the faith of the people, 
because all are lit up by the one principal spirit. Next it 
goes on to say that when Paul writes to instruct the Corinthians 
and the Thessalonians, every one knows that there is but one 
Church on earth, and that when John writes to the seven 
Churches in the Apocalypse, he writes for all. The proof that 
the disputed Scriptures are genuine rests on the honour in 
which they are held in the Catholic Church, and on the 
sanction given to them by the Church’s discipline. The 
Apocrypha cannot be received in the Catholic Church any 
more than gall can blend with honey. By mentioning Bishop 
Pius by name, ‘who was sitting in the chair of the Roman 
“Church when Hermas was writing his Pastor,” he removes 
all doubt as to his conception of the Catholic Church.* 

4. I'he learned, it is true, are not quite agreed on the 


® Et licet varia singulis evangeliorum principia doceantur, nihil tamen differt 


*“fcredentium fidei, cum uno ac principali spivitu declarata sint in omnibus omnia 
ee licet pro corieptione iteretur [scil. ad Corinthios et Thessalonicenses], 
“una tamen per omnem orbem terrae ecclesia diffusa esse dignoscitur . . .« 
* Jicet septem Ecclesiis scribat, tamen omen/bus dicit. Verum ad Filemonen nna, 
et ad Titum una et ad Timotheum duas pro affectione et dilectione, in honorem 
“famenectlesiae catholicae “.. .. <'- Pastorem vero nuperim et temporibus 
“nostris in urbe Roma Hermas Conscripsit, sedente in cathedra urbis Romae 
“fecclesiae Pio eps. fratre ejus.” 


— Ss eS 


ES 


ee Sa ee a a a ee ae ae ns 


a 


a ee Ye 


= ey < coal Ey ~ 


a 
ve 


Vek oe ra 


THE CHURCH CATHOLIC, 201 


meaning of the word, as applied to the letters of the first 
Apostles, “ Catholic Epistles.” Still there are only two possible 
meanings in this connection, and both serve to throw light 
on its ecclesiastical usage. Tor they were so called either 
because they were generally recognized by the Church, or 
because they were circular letters addressed to the whole 
Church. The term “Catholic Epistles” first came into use 
in Alexandria. Clement “explained the Epistle of Jude, and 
“the other Catholic Epistles, and the Epistle of Barnabas.” 
Origen calls the Epis le of Jude, the 1st Epistle of S_ Peter, 
and §. John’s Epistle, Catholic Epistles. The last of these 
Dionysius also describes as “ Catholic.” Eusebius comprises 
all seven under this name. Clement likewise gives this name 
to the letter of the Apostolic Council, and Origen to the 
Epistle of Barnabas. And Eusebius relates that according 
to Apollonius, the Montanist Themison presumed to write a 
Catholic Epistie for the instruction of Christendom.® From 
these facts it is evident that the word when applied to the 
Church, had reference to its universality. 

s. The word “Catholic.” then, as referring to the universal 
Church, had, at a very early age, passed into common usage, 
and become an ingredient in the common faith in Rome, Asia 
Minor, Alexandria, and Palestine. What wonder, then, if It 
also eutered into the creed: “TI believe in the One, Holy, 
“Catholic Church?” Clement of Alexandria’s words pre- 
suppose the existence of this article in the Apostolic creed: 
‘For from the very reason that God is one, and the Lord one, 
“that which is in the highest degree honourable is lauded in 
“consequence of its singleness, being an imitation of the one 
“first principle. In the nature of the One, then, is associated 
“in a joint heritage the one Church, which they strive to 
“cut asunder into many sects. ‘Fherefore, in substance and 
“idea, in origin, in pre-eminence, we say that the ancient 
and universal Church is alone, collecting as it does into the 


gs See Aberle-Schang, Einleitng, p. 242. Kaulen, Zindeitng, p- 543» 


202 THE CHURCH CATHOLIC, 


“unity of the one faith—which results from the peculiar 


“Testaments, or rather in the one Testament in different. 


“times. , .', .” The Nicene Creed retained the article. 
People now began to say: “My name is Christian, and my 
“surname Catholic.”7 I ama Catholic Christian.”8 
6. And now the time was come when the light of reflection 
was brought to bear upon the phrase that had grown out of the 
universal belief, and had become the watchword of orthodoxy. 
The meaning and reasons assigned for its usage were taken 
from the nature of things. Catholicity meant universality in 
time and space. The Church is Catholic, because she has 
existed without a break since the time of the Apostles, and 
because she is a girdle encircling the earth. The same truth is 
preached everywhere, and the same sacraments are dispensed #0 
all men, Such is the explanation that Cyril of Jerusalem gives 
of the article in the Apostles’ Creed: “ believe in the One, 
‘Holy, Catholic Church. Her name is Catholic, because she 
“is spread all over the earth, and stretches from end to ends 
- “because she universally (kaBoAtKGs)and uninterruptedly teaches 
“all the doctrines of faith necessary for man to know ; because 
“she presses into God’s service the whole human race, whether 
“rulers or subjects, learned or unlearne” ; lastly, because she 
“heals all maladies of soul and body.”9 
7. As arule, heretics and schismatics did not dare to label 
their conventicles Catholic, They appeared later on the scene ; 
they were confined to a narrow strip of territory. Moreover, 
their very variety helped to emphasize the universality of the 
Church, and their many contradictory doctrines set out in bold 
relief the one universal truth, Hence Catholic or universal 
became synonymous with crthodox. None but the Catholic 
truth is the same all the world over. In this concerted harmony 
of the many local churches, the Fathers saw a powerful and 


Strom. vii. 17. (Clark’s Trans),) 
Pacianus, ad Sempron. Ep. 1. 30 
August., de wt77. cred. 1. 2, 
Catech. xviii. 23, 


Co eOrX Aa 


esa eh, ee ee ee eee 


THE..CHURCH CATHOLIC, 203 


irresistible argument for the truth of the Catholic Church. 
Heretics, who paraded themselves as the elect of Christian- 
ity, and tried to represent their Church as Catholic, only 
made themselves a laughing-stock. Cyprian* likened 
Novatian to a monkey. Monkeys are not men, but they 
mimic men; so Novatian, by aping Catholics, thought to 
establish his claim to Catholic truth. Heretics, as S. Augus- 
tine reminds us, have smuggled but a few doctrines from 
the Catholic Church, Hence, while flying at one another’s 
throats, they are always prepared to make common cause 
against the Church. If the stray truths in each heresy were 
put together, the resultant would only be an approximation 
to Catholic truth. 

Among the reasons given by S. Augustine for remaining 
in the Catholic Church, is the name “ Catholic” itself, which 
the Church alone, amid a legion of heresies, has retained: 
“ Although there be many heresies, each striving to appear 
“as Catholic and branding as heretics those who differ from 
eecever there is, but:one. Church, asallkadmit....4 4). (Chis 
“is the Catholic Church, to which heretics give different 
“names, each heresy choosing a different word to express 
“that whichthey cannot deny inher. Hence it is easy to see 
-“to whom an impartial tribunal would award the name 
“© Catholic,’ which all covet.’ The saint considers the surest 
way to find the Catholic Church, the one he himself had 
trodden ; Follow the road of Catholic discipline, which leads 
from Christ through the Apostles to ourselves, and thence 
passes on to posterity. “We must hold fast to the Chris- 
“tian religion and the communion of that Church which 
“both is, and is called Catholic. Heretics and schismatics 
“ whether they like it or no, are obliged when speaking with 
“strangers to call her the Catholic Church. For, unless 
“they call her by the name by which she is known all over 
“the globe, they are not understood.’””” 

8. The Fathers put to practical use this involuntary 


* L£pist. 73,2. Cf. Lactant., Juzstit. iv. 29. 
10 Aug. de util cred. vii. 19. cf. xiv. 32; xvi. 34; Ep. 93,7; C. Ep. Man. Fund. c. 4, Se 
Ml De Vera relig. 12. cf. 7. Ep. 105. 3. 


204 THE CHURCH CATHOLIC. 


admission on the part of heretics, by employing it as a sort 
of argumentum ad hominem against them. Although, says 
S. Augustine, all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet 
no heretic, if asked by a stranger where was the Catholic 
Church, would dare to point to his own house or conventi- 
cle. Cyril of Jerusalem applies it in the following way.: 
‘*But since the word Church or.Assembly is applied to 
‘* different things (. . . I mean the meetings of the heretics, 
‘‘the Marcionists and Manichees and the rest), the Faith 
‘“has delivered to thee by way of security the article: ‘ And 
‘‘in One Holy Catholic Church,’ that thou mayest avoid 
‘“their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy 
‘Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And 
‘“if ever thou art sojourning in any city, inquire not simply 
‘where the Lord's House [To Kupianov] is, but where is 
‘“the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of 
‘“this holy body, the mother of us all, which is the spouse 
“of our Lord Jesus ‘Christ, the Only-bégotten ‘SOnaamems 
‘“And while the kings of particular nations have bounds 
“set to their dominion, the Holy Church Catholic alone 
‘“ extends her illimitable sovereignty over the whole world, 
‘““ for God, as it is written, hath made her border peace.’’™™ 

Could the visibility of the Church have been more lucidly 
expressed ? The Catholic visible Church, which is every- 
where in its adherents, in its discipline and worship, and 
bishops, must have made a powerful impression alike on 
friends and foes. ‘‘In the Scriptures,’’ says S. Augus- 
tine, ‘‘ we learn Christ. In the Scriptures, we also learn 
“the Church. We have the Scriptures in common, why 
‘“have we not also the Church in common? If you hold 
‘“‘ fast to Christ, why not also to the Church? If through 
“the truth of the Scriptures you believe in Christ whom 
“you do not see, why do you deny the Church which you 
~ “do see and of which you likewise read in the Scriptures ? 
‘“ Because we foretell you this, and exhort you to peace 
“‘and love, the greatest good, we are become your 


12 Catech. xviii. 26, 27. (Oxford Transl ) 


THE CHURCH CATHOLIC, 205 


enemies.”!3_ Nay, he characterizes it as an heretical device to 
derive the name Catholic not from its universa! communion, 
but from its observance of all God’s commandments and 
sacraments. As if, forsooth, granting that the Church were 
also called Catholic from holding fast to all truth, Catholics 
had no other argument than the mere name, and not the 
prophecies and words of Christ, to prove that the Church is 
universal and world-wide. The expansion of the Catholic 
Church, which is everywhere visible and palpable, is the chief 
reason why Catholicity is a mark and a visible sign of that true 
Church, which prophets foretold, Christ and the Apostles 
preached. 

9. The Fathers, it is true, in the exuberance of their joy, 
often gave a highly coloured account of the spread of Christi- 
anity. Thus Tertullian and Origen boasted to the heathen 
that Christians, although only creatures of yesterday, were 
already peopling the cities, and islands, and markets, and 
Swarming in the camp, the palace, the senate and the forum ; 
in fine, they had left nothing empty but the temples.16 They 
start, indeed, from the historical fact that Christianity had 
already penetrated into every province and into all classes of 
society, but the rhetorical and apologetic cast of their story 
should not pass unnoticed. Some are but too ready to set 
down Tertullian as a great exaggerator, “magnus quidam ubique 
“rerum amplificator” (Vavassor). Compared with the heathen 
multitude Christians were, indeed, but a speck on the horizon, 
but their courageous faith and moral purity made them a power 
in the world that was not to be underrated. 

When persecution had found itself powerless to stamp out 
Christianity, and a friendly policy had been inaugurated by 


13 Epist. ros, 3. 4. 5. 


14 Ep. 93, 7, 23. cf. Ep. 18s, 1 1,53 la Ps. xxx Sermo ti. 4,83 De untt eccles. ii. 23 
li. 5; v.83 xix. 49. 

15 Euseb. Caes., in Ps. 81, 8; in Ps. 32.173; Epiph., Hae. 61, 2; Greg. Naz., C. Zul 
Gays: Cheve, Hoidiis Matth. 54,23; Hieron; Adv. Laer Deas. 


16 Tertull. Apolog. c. 37. dv Lud. c. 7- Bellarm. De Controv, Tom. ii. 1. ii. 4, 7 


206 THE CHURCH CATHOLIC, 


Constantine, Christianity quickly asserted its enduring superi- 
ority, until at length the empire was converted. S. Augustine 
frequently boasts that people were afraid to profess belief in 
heathenism. For, says he, there are more Christians in the 
world than Jews and pagans combined. Of the immense 
multitude living beyond the confines of the Roman empire, 
the Fathers had not the faintest suspicion. Even now it is 
hardly possible to form an exact estimate of the population 
of the earth, but it may be set down approximately at 1445 
millions; of these about 450 millions are Christians, of whom 
225 millions are Catholics. 


Was it not, therefore, arrogance on the part of the Fathers to 


assume the name Catholic? Or, at least is it not so nowadays, 
when the true proportion is more accurately known? In the 
first place, it should be borne in mind that the designation 
was assumed in contradistinction to the Christian sects. In 
contrast with the heathen, the name Christian was sufficient, 
except when it became necessary, in opposition to the sects, 
to set prominently before men the true Catholic Church founded 
by Christ, in order to guard her from misconception and con- 
fusion. All the sects, in common with the Catholic Church, regard 
Christianity as the means of sanctification instituted by Christ, 
and intended to fill the earth and save all men. From among 
the different communities one must be true and Apostolic, 
And viewing the question from an ex/erna/ standpoint, which 
can be the true Church, if it be not the one that best answers 
to the description given by Christ and the prophets, that is 
most widely spread, and counts most members? ‘This was 
the Catholic Church, as the name indicates. And even in 


these days, if looked at from this point of view, she can justly _ 


lay claim to this title, both in the face of the orthodox [Greek] 
and reformed Churches. 
Io. Still greatness of extent must be considered as well 


as mere numbers. No Church, but the Catholic, can point 


to believers all the world over, who are in communion with 


THE CHURCH CATHOLIC. 207 


the universal Church, With a few unimportant exceptions, 
no power has ever succeeded in suppressing her, nor has the 
violence done to her weakened her expansiveness. Lamentable 
as schisms are for the body of Christ, they serve to reveal 
the unconquerable might of the Catholic Church, and to open 
out for her new fields of labour. From the very first, the 
Catholic Church, mindful of our Lord’s words: ‘“ Going teach 
“all nations,” has ever considered her chief mission to lie 
in evangelizing unbelievers and Jews. She it was who over- 
came the Roman empire, and won it over to Christianity. 
Without a compactly organized Church this gigantic struggie 
would have been hopeless. And she carried the torch of the 
Gospel in turn to the wild tribes of Asia, Egypt, and North 
Africa, and won over to Christ Celts, Geriians and Sclavs. 
This great work has been done by the Church, not by this 
sect or that or by all together, nay not even by the Eastern 
Church. S. Augustine’s outspoken conviction holds good at 
all times of the Catholic Church: that the power and energy 
that has endured in her since the days of the Aposties prove 
her to be the true Church. 

All the sects, as the Fathers were quick to observe, without 
distinction, have drawn their recruits, not from the heathen, but 
from Christians whom they have seduced from the true faith, 
from the one body of Christ. ‘They make it their business,” 
says Tertullian, ‘‘not to convert the heathen, but to subvert 
“our people; this is rather the glory at which they catch : to com- 
“pass the fall of those who stand, not to raise those who have 
“fallen. Accordingly, since the very work which they propose to 
“themselves comes not from the building-up their own society, 
“but from demolishing the truth, they undermine our edifices, 
“that they may erect their own.”!7 And S. Augustine compares 
heretics with a hen that gathers round her the young ducks, as 
_ if they were her own chicks. “ For, ‘hose whom they seduce in 
“the name of Christ, they find ready-made Christians, ‘They 


uy De Praescript. c. 42 


208 - THE CHURCH CATHOLIC, 


“find them born again of the Gospel of Christ, and then 
“boast of them as their own riches.”}8 

iz. But the missionary labours of the Church are cast in 
quite another mould. She never lost sight of those that were 
sitting in darkness and the shadows of death. And although 
violently assailed 11 Europe by the Reformation, she had 
sufficient strength to turn her attention to the heathen in lands 
newly discovered. Missionaries followed in the wake of the 
brave navigators. China and Japan beheld the ambassadors 
of the Gospel. The career of S. Francis Xavier is an eloquent 
testimony to the Church’s great missionary labours. In 
America the footprints of the conquerors were stained with 
blood, but the Church’s missioners came with the olive branch 
of peace. Considering, on the one hand, the abominable 
idolatry of the Mexicans, culminating in couniless human 
sacrifices, and the low ebb of civilization to which the Indians 
had sunk, we cannot but marve! at the great progress effected 
by missionary zeal in South and Central-America. While, in the 
North, the Indians were being trodden down or exterminated, 
the Spaniards were rearing a race of Christian half-breds, 
whose religion and morality, indeed, though leaving much to 
desire, betokened distinct progress. Had not the Indian 
Reservations been ruthlessly destroyed by wily cunning and 
brutality, the wretched savages would even now be leading a 
peaceful and happy life with the “good Fathers.” Success 
follows slowly on missioners in Africa, Gut they have to contend 
against peculiar difficulties. Islam declares war @ outsance on 
every mission, The ancient civilized religions of India and 
China are conservative and stationary, in proportion to their 
antiquity, Let us hope that even here the blood of the martyrs 
_will prove the seed of Christianity. Even a Protestant witness!9 
is forced to confess; “ Not only in newly discovered lands, but 
“all the world over, on every shore washed by the ever 


18 C. Faust. Manich., xiii. 123 
zg Plath, ap. Zockler, iii, 168 


; eee eee Ce ee ee a en Ee _ 


THE CHURCH CATHOLIC. 209 


*moun'inz billows of commerce, the Roman Catholic Church 
“is often the first to show the way, prociaiming and giving 
“effect to her tendency to universality.” He naturally adds: 
“often not without invading the territories pre-occupied by 
“others, on the pretext that she is the only legitimate 
“| Evangelizer].” 

12. The Reformed Churches, following the example set 
long ago by ancient heretics, have recruited their ranks from 
Catholics. Nay, even to this day, they are driving their mis- 
sionary trade in such thoroughly Christian countries as Spain 
and Italy. It is significant that they only undertook the 
heathen mission at the beginning of the eighteenth century. 
The sums contributed for this purpose in Germany, England, 
and America, apart from Bible Society proceeds, are very con- 
siderable. Missionaries are at work in many stations, chiefly in 
Asia and Africa. But the materials furnished by statistics are 
at present insufficient to enable us to judge of their success. In 
any case Protestant m’ssionary colleges cannot compare with 
the Propaganda in Rome, which is Catholic missionary enter- 
prise in miniature. Protestant missions too are, as a rule, 
independent of the ecclesiastical rulers of their own native land, 
and have no common centre. Let us listen once more to the 
same Protestant voice: ‘Only in a few places are large com- 
“munities formed ; in the majority the fundamental stage has 
“not been passed.” The “ English-American Mission” alone 
leaves “the impression of being comparatively more vigorous, 
“and of making rapid progress among modern heathenism.” 
But when the same writer adds that this mission has outstripped 
“even the work of the Roman Catholic Church,” he had in 
view merely the external apparatus and momentary flash of suc- 
cess. Had he perused the reports of Catholic Missions, they 
would have convinced him that his account is one-sided. Be 
this as it may, in any case they one and all abandon the prin- 
ciple of Catholicity at the very outset, 

The authors of the formula concordie ventured, though 


J 


21rO THE CHURCH CATHOLIC. 


somewhat timidly, to claim Catholicity for the Augsburg 
Confession, on the ground that it had been “publicly 
*‘ diffused among all Christians and all lands, was everywhere 
‘“becoming known, and had begun to be in the mouths 
“of all.”°° But Bellarmine had no difficulty in showing 
that the claim was preposterous. All the Reformed Churches 
combined, neither then nor now, can bear comparison with 
the Catholic Church. In a certain sense, it is true, heresy 
is as ubiquitous as the Church. It dogs the Church at the 
heels, as the shadow follows light. But the Church is one, 
while heresy is multiple. So another meaning had to be found for 
the word “‘ Catholic” ; namely, that suggested by the Apology. 
“The Apostles’ Creed,” it says, “calls the Church Catl.olic, 
not that we may suppose the Church to be a state institution 
comprising many peoples, but rather that all men, scattered 
over all lands, who are in agreement as regards the Gospel, may 
have the same Christ, the same Holy Spirit, and the same 
Sacraments, whether they have the same traditions of men or 
not.”*! But who are those that agree about the Gospel, have the 
same faith and the same Sacraments? And what Sacramen’s? 
Those of the Catholic Church or the Sects? The whole state- 
ment begs the question at issue; is a perversion of the article ~ 
in the Apostolic Creed ; takes no cognisance of the divine 
Organization of the Church; makes her in fact invisible ; 
and destroys both unity and catholicity, 

The objection raised by S. Augustine against the Donatists 
may still, with equal force, be urged against Protestants. Indeed, 
it was actually thrown in Luther’s teeth. We have only to 
substitute the word German for African, and S. Augustine’s 
words apply perfectly. “Do you imagine that the -African 
(German) Church is the Catholic Church ? The Gospels tell 
‘us that the Church would cover the whole earth. The same, 
“moreover, has been foretold by the Law, the Prophets and 


20 Prae/.2. Bellarm. ii. 4, 7- 
ax Cap.¢g de Eccles. nq 


THE CHURCH CATHOLIC. 211 


“the Psalms, as Christ Himself assured us. . . . These 
“words were followed by deeds. Scripture shows how the 
“Church began in Jerusalem, how she spread first through 
“Judea and Samaria, and then over the whole earth. She 
“is still growing and will continue to grow until she enclose all 
“peoples within her bosom. Let him who preaches another 
“Gospel be anathema. Such a one is he who says that the 
“‘Church has perished everywhere outside Donatus and Africa. 
“Therefore let him be anathema,” ”? 

In course of time, as the Church widened her sphere, the 
bond of living faith working through charity became relaxed in 
many. The bright picture of Christian faith and virtue painted 
by the Apologists was sure, sooner or later, to fade in parts. 
But did the Church therefore cease to be Catholic? Or, from 
the moment chat cockle appeared among the wheat, did she 
even lose her former character as an institution for saving 
mankind? There is a theory broached to the effect that the 
Catholic Church, as faith blossomed into dogma (doctrine of 
faith), thrust herself between the individual man and _ his 
salvation, and thus by making herself a necessary condition 
of salvation ceased to be a real means of salvation and a 
real community of saints. Hence it was only natural that 
about 220 A.D., the Roman bishop Calixtus should have laid 
down the proposition, that wheat and cockle must grow up 
together in the Catholic Church, and that Noah’s ark, with 
its clean and unclean animals, was a type of the Church.* 
How hollow all this is! Did not our Lord Himself liken the 
kingdom of heaven to a field in which the cockle grew up 
among the wheat? Did He not foretell that not every one 
that said Lord, Lord! shall enter into the kingdom of heaven ? 
What mean, too, the parables of the great supper, of the wise 
and foolish virgins? Does not the Apostle, too, declare over 
and over again that the impure and the cuvetous and such 


22 De Unit xii. 32 
23 Harnack, i. 3023 


212 THE CHURCH CATHOLIC, 


like shall not possess the kingdom of God, in order to keep 


the faithful away from sin? He implies, indeed, that there 


are sinners among the saints. But who caa say that he is 


without sin? The visible external Church, as we have already 
explained, implies aa invisible Church, as the living body 
implies a soul, both being intimately coanected, the visible 
being uade: certain definite conditions the means of reachiag 
the invisidie ii that can b2 said, then, is that sinners belong 
mainly to the visible Church, and only partially to the invisible. 
Both these ideas are found combined in Pastor Hermas. The 
simile of the ark very naturally fits ia with I Peter 11. 20, 
and was often employed by the Fathers. 

Th primitive idea of the Church, therefore, has 


12. 
whatever.2* It is and has ever been 


undergone no change 
what it was in the beginning ; unless, indeed, we say that the 
Church as such has entirely ceased to be. For the Church 
has never existed without dogmatic teaching and ecclesiastical 
disciplinz. Nor is the plea, that the Church has changed, new. 
Once more St. Augustine shall be out spokesman. For this 
was the very taunt thac the Donatists flouted in the Church's 
face: that she had fallea away from her primitive sanctity, and 
had thereby, as it were, died of an infectious - disease. 
Everywhere, they said, not oniy was there cockle among the 
wheat, but the wheat all over the field, that is the world, except 
in the Donatist corner, had died.2* “Is it then in vain that 
“the Lord commanded to let both the cockle andthe wheat 
“orow togethe: until the harvest? Is it in vain that He 
“promised to remain with His Church till the end of time? 
“ Does it chance that the Church of all nations has perished, 
‘and is only to be found with a handful of Donatists ?” 
. This contention Augustine characterized as insolent, outrageous, 
and worthy of au reprobation. ‘‘ Nothing now was wanting 
‘but to assert that those who believe in God, have fallen away 
24 See Aug. De Civ. Deé. xviii. 493 Hieron, Adv. Lucifin. 22; Schwane, li. 8343 


also A pol. Conf. iv.74 Pastor Hermae, Simec. ix- 
as De Haer.c. 69; C. Lit. Petic. it. 73. 1745 C. Crescon. ii. 275 Ep. 105, 5, 16. 


—e 


THE CHURCH CA1HOLIC. 213 


“from the faith, but that those who believe in man, are the 
“faithful. Yet God has said: ‘In thy name sha!l all generations 
“be blessed.’”*5 (Gen. xx. 18). Nor, again, would it avail 
the Donatists to appeal to the end of time, when faith will 
grow cold; unless they had first converted the whole world. 
Since, therefore, that Church is recognized in Scripture as 
true “which has spread its roots in all nations, it can only be 
“the Catholic Church.” ‘The Church will never come to an 
“end. The gates of hell shall never prevail against her. 
“And she will ever be Catholic, and overspread the globe.” 
Thus in Augustine the “principle of Catholicity ” triumphed 
over the “principle of sanctity.”®” In other words, the 
Church principle that has ever been abiding in the Christian 
communion from the beginning, has triumphed, and all attacks 
on it have been repelled. 

Not faith for its own sake, but faith as the groundwork and 
root of the Christtan lite of grace and virtue, leads to salvation. 
But this life of grace and virtue Our Lord Himself has made 
dependent on membership of His Church, that society in 
“‘which the Sacraments are administered and the Gospel 
“preached.” He that heareth the Apostles, heareth Christ ; 
and he that will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as 
the heathen and the publican, Anyhow, men had not then 
lighted on the “despairing idea of a purely invisible Church.” 
‘This idea,” says the same author, ‘ would have accelerated 
“the downfall of Christianity in the Church far more rapidly 
‘than the idea of the Holy Catholic Church.” *8 Was there 
then no hope of saving Christianity from tottering to a fall? 
Does the Church of Chrysostom, Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, 
of Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine and Leo, mark a 
decline? And where is now the Church of the saints of them 
that are without sin? The Church, as Augustine retorted on 
26 C. Gaud. i. 15; Cf. Ambros, Hexaém. iv. 7; In Ps. x. 4, 303 Athan. /n Ps. 

Ixxxviii. 29; Bellarm. |. c. iii. 16. 


27 Reuter, dugust. Studien. Gotha 1887, p. 106. See Theol. Liter. Zing. 1187, Nr. 15. 
28 Harnack, p. 309. Notes. 


214 THE CHURCH CATHOLIC, 


the Donatists, must have utterly vanished. ‘Separate, 
‘therefore, the visible holy Sacrament, which can extst both in 
‘the good and tn the bad,—in the former for their reward, in the 
‘latter for judgment , separate it from the invisible function of 
“charity, which is the peculiar property of the good. Separate 
“them, separate them, aye, and may God separate you from the 
“party of Donatus, and call you back again into the Catholic 
‘Church, whence you were torn by them while yet a catechumen 
“to be bound by them in deadly bonds.”9 

14. The religious craving for internal unity, and for 
external interaction and co-operation, is best satisfied by the 
idea of community. The whole community seems like one 
great family of God, whose members, united to themselves 
and to God by charity, strive, by mutually supporting one 
another, to accomplish the great end of mankind.2? In what 
does a Catholic find the highest contentment of mind and 
heart? In the growing consciousness that millions of others, 
separated by mountain and valley, land and sea, are worshipping 
God in the same language, and with the same sacrifice and 
sacraments, 
ag Aug. C. Lit. Petil. ii. 104. 239; De BaZi. iii. 13 v. 62. 
go Mohler, p. 334, 


—— 


—_— ST eS 


=_ ', 4." 2° a 


ay, ee 


CHAPTER VIII. 


THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE. 


& 


1*, The Christian Revelaticn, as finally proclaimed by the 
Apostles and preserved by the Church Apostolic, is the adso/ute 
truth, the supreme law for the human mind and will, the rule of 
thought and action. It is given for all men, individually and 
collectively. It is valid for every place, and for all time. It is 
One, Catholic and Apostolic. To say, therefore, that the 
Church is One, Catholic and Apostolic implies that she 
preserves this absolute truth whole and intact, as she received 
it from the Apostles ; that she preserves it for all ages, and for 
all sorts and conditions of men. But if this be so, the Church 
must be infallible; that is, she must hold a guarantee, as 


absolute as the divine truth she preserves—a divine warrant 


that she is never mistaken in announcing the complete revela- 
tion given by Jesus Christ and His Apostles. And, indeed, 
how could the Church maintain her unity for long, without such 
an absolute surety ? Of what avail would be her apostolicity, 
unless it were a voucher that her faith and doctrines have been 
kept pure and unadulterated? Unity, Catholicity, and Aposto- 
licity are correlative with the absolute truth, or rather with the 
certainty of possessing absolute truth. And this certainty can- 
not be hers otherwise than by a charisma veritatis, a divine gift 
of inerrancy. Surpassingly great as is man’s mind and will, he 
cannot lay hold of absolute truth ; nor, if he had it within his 
grasp, could he retain it pure and perfect so as to transmit it to 
posterity. Revelation, too, by its very nature, exacts acceptance, 


216 THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE. 


on the part of man, by faith. But faith supposes authority. 
There is no faith without authority. Natural faith rests on the 
authority a man has with his fellow-men. The child believes 
the authority of its parents ; the pupil that of his master. The 
learned rely on the truthfuluess of chroniclers and eye-witnesses, 
Religious faith requires a divine, that is, an infallille authority, 
which is no other than God Himself, the very truth. Now if 
God does not speak directly and immediately to each man, but 
has revealed His truth through the medium of human organs, 
these cannot have it in their power to jeopardise the divine 
certainty necessary for faith. They, like the prophets, must 
be animated by a divine presence. It was so in Christ, 
and in His Apostles, and it must be so in His Church, 
This is an absolutely self-evident truth. There must be 
an infallible authority, if there is to be any revelation 
or any faith in the world. Any thing short of this would 
fail in the» task which Christ imposed on His Church. §, 
Augustine felt the full force of this argument, when he said: 
“If divine providence does not preside over and guide all 
“things human, then are we utterly helpless in matters of 
“religion, and can attain to nothing (certain). But if, on 
“the other, the beauty that we everywhere see around us, 
“which evidently flows from some source, and man’s own 
“inner consciousness publicly and privately urge the best souls 
“to seek God and to serve Him—then there can be no doubt 
‘that God has, somewhere or other, instituted some authority, 
“by the help of which we can securely raise ourselves to God,” 
But where are men to look for this authority outside the 
Catholic Church ? Who would begin his search with any sect ? 
What can the Manichzeans, who have haughtily chosen “Science” 
for the device emblazoned on their banner, offer in exchange 
- for belief in authority ? 

2. We have stated these a priori considerations merely by 
way of introduction. For the real proof, however, which is 


x De Util. Cred. xvi. 34. Cf. viii. 20 xiv. 31, Mohler, Sysdolik, p. 333° 


“ee teal 


ne eee 


THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE, 217 


quite independent of them, we have to turn once more to the 
positive ordinances and institutions of our Lord. The Church’s 
Infallibility is closely connected with her Apostolicity. For 
revelation was completed by the Apostles, and by them 
committed to the safe-keeping of the Church, in which the 
Apostolate was to continue for ever as an organic element. 
The first question then, that presents itself for our consideration 


1ls— 


# THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE APOSTLES AND THE APOSTOLIC 
CHURCH. 

Now on this point there can hardly be a doubt among 
believers. The word “Apostle,” “ Apostolic,” had from the 
first such a fascination for believers, that it sufficed to sience 
all disputes. The principle of Apostolicity, as we have already 
seen,” was the rule according to which doctrine and morals, 
Scripture and Tradition were measured. It passed as self- 
evid_nt that an Apostolic writing was inspired. No one ever 
dreamed of demanding further proof. 

Now it is easy to show that our Lord promised the Apostles 
the gift of infallibility, and that they claimed it in practice. 
When He promised Peer that the gates of hell shouid never 
prevail against the Church built on him, He assuredly promised 
him security from error. When He prayed that Peter’s faith 
might not fail, He held out to him the certain prospect that 
God would protect His faith. But there are statements still 
more clear and explicit. To all the disciples together Jesus 
promised “the Spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive, 
“ because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him; but you shall 
“know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be 
“in yoo.” (John xiv. 17). But when the Paraclete shall 
“come whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of 
“truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony 
“of me: and you shall give testimony of me, because you 


@ Christian Apol, vol. I1. chap. xii 


218 THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE. 


“you are with me from the beginning,” (xv. 26). ‘ These 
“things have I spoken to you, remaining with you. But the 
‘“*Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in 
“my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all 
“things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to 
“you.” (xIv. 26). This promise Christ repeated after his 
resurrection : “And you are witnesses of these things. And 
“T send the promise of my Father upon you: but stay you 
“in the city, till you be endued with power from on high.” 
(Luke xxiv. 48. 49). “But you shall receive the power of 
“the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses 
‘“‘unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and 
‘even to the uttermost part of the earth.” (Acts 1, 8). Before 
His ascension Jesus gave His disciples their commission: ‘*Go 
“ye, therefore and teach all nations . . . and behold I 
“am with you all days even to the consummation of the 
world.” (Matth. xxvilr. 19. 29). 

3. “These words were spoken to men but once, yet they 
‘have found an echo in the heart of every believer for eighteen 
“centuries. The God of universal dominion will never abandon 
“ His Church: no foe shall subdue her, or persecutor destroy 
“her, or error darken her threshold. For Me has promised 
“that He will ever be at her side, with His all-powerful aid, 
“when she is discharging her office of teaching all nations, 
“and of the handing down revealed truth in its purity and 
“integrity to succeeding generations. And He has likewise 
“distinctly specified the mode and manner of the aid He 
“will render to her; when He goes to the Father, He will 
“send the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, to dwell in His 
‘Church for all time. And it shall be His business to ‘lead 
“into all truth,’ to call all things to their mind that Christ 
“said and taught. So, ever since the first Pentecost, the 
“Church has had a divine instructor and guide, and she 
“herself is the organ through which the Holy Spirit teaches 
“the faithful.’’ We have quoted these words of Dollinger 
3 Christhenum und Kirche. 1860. p. 226. 


oo ee 


_—_ = 


eee 


a | +7 > a wr 


‘ fen Ye ae 


THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE. 2190 


in extenso, to show that it is not the want of Scripture proof, 
which leads men to doubt the infallible authority of the 
Apostles and the Church. 

A twofold attempt has been made to explain away these ver 
definite promises. They have, it is said, no reference to an 
infallible assistance present from the beginning, but only to the 
gradual development of divine truth, and its realization, on the 
part of the Church. And it is further alleged that the words 
bear only on those things which the Apostles were then unable 
to bear.* 

But this is the merest subterfuge, and is, moreover, unfair to 
the texts quoted. It is, indeed, quite true, that part of the 
divine assistance promised to the Apostles was given to enable 
them to know fully and to understand what they were before 
unable to bear. But to set this limit to the divine assistance is 
altogether a gratuitous supposition. And, we would further ask, 
how was the gradual development of truth in the Church to 
take place, unless God were at hand to guide it ? If the Apostles 
required divine assistance the first time they proclaimed 
revelation, why was it not required for continued preaching, 
and subsequent development? For the rest, the words of promise 
are so absolute, that they overrule any such distinction as that 
suggested above. Again, if it be urged from S, Matthew xvu1. 
1g. 20, and S. John xiv. 15 seq. that the ‘Spirit of Truth’ is 
promised to all believers according to the measure in which 
they keep Christ’s commandments, and that, consequently, it 
amounts to no more than an increase of inward light and power 
in grasping truth already knows as revealed (Rom. 1. 19; ii. 
14), just as the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,— 
then we must admit, indeed, that the fanatical sects (e.g. 
Waldenses), however mutually contradictory they be, are one 
and all justified in laying claim to divine guidance. In this 
case, of course, there can be no question of an Apostolic and 


4 Hase, Polemik , p. 37. Keller Reformation und die dlteren Reformparteien. Leip- 
1885, p. 42- 44. 


220 THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE, 


infallible Church, nor, we may add, of Christianity. And, in 
truth, the Waldenses applied their subjective rule to Holy 
Scripture, by insisting that Scripture itself should furnish the 
proof that Christ made the so-called Canonical books, and no 
others, to be the rule of salvation. They did not consider the 
Apostles infallible. They drew a distinction, according to their 
own whims and caprice, between things in Scripture that are 
and that are not necessary for salvation. The Old Testament 
was valid only in so far as it clearly harmonized with Christ’s 
words. And Christ’s words were made into a sort of easy 
standard for measuring S, Paul’s teaching. Similar distinctions 
are current nowadays between the teaching of Christ and of the 
Apostles, between that of the first Apostles and S. Paul Thus 
all authority, even that of Holy Scripture, is tossed to the 
-winds, and rationalism, with the thinnest veneer of fanciful 
Christianity, is erected into the principle and rule of faith. 
4. Now, be it noted, we are not wholly denying that the 
promises, made directly to the Apostles, were often intended 
for the whole Church, regarded as the communion of believers ;5 
but they were always intended tor the faithful in the Catholic 
Church ; for the faithful that were begotten of the Church that 
is built upon the foundation of the Apostles. To the Church 
modelled on the Apostles, which the Apostles were charged to 
spread to the ends of the earth, which could glory in possessing 
the Apostolic writings and tradition,—to her, as a community, 
not to individuals as such, nor to any portion of believers, who 


chose to form themselves into a particular association, were th~” 


promises made. ‘This mutual relation between the Church and 
its members, between the LZeclesta docens and the Lcclesia 
discens, must naturally be taken as self-evident. sence, at the 
Seventh’ General Council (787 a.p.), the words in Matth. xxviii. 
20, far from being restricted to the disciples, were extended to 
all who through them should believe. Neverthcless, in their 
decree of faith the bishops appeal to Christ, the Apostles and 


g Langen, Unfehlbarkeit 2,115. See Hefele, Conciliengeschichte a edit. iii, 467. 47% 


a 


ae = ne 


THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE, 221 


prophets, and to the teaching of the Apostles, in other words, 
to infallible teachers. ‘No one” says Langen, explained the 
passage of the ‘‘infallibilily of the hierarchy.” Granted ; but 
was it not generally considered a proof of the infallibility of that 
Church, which had always recognized a teaching h erarchy, and 
constantly appealed to the infallibility of the Apostles? 

5. Called to be witnessses by our Lord Himself, the 
Apostles ever considered themselves witnesses of Christ in a 
twofold capacity; as natural eye-witnesses of the public 
ministry of Jesus from His baptism till His ascension into 
heaven, (Acts I. 21, seq); and also inasmuch as they were 
endowed with power from on high to bear infallible testimony 
to Christ, the Son cf God. Jesus, by closely uniting both 
elements, and by pointing to the power of the Holy Ghost as 
the unmistakable sign of divine testimony, laid the foundation 
for the infailible teaching office of the Church in the Apostles, 
He that rejects the testimony of the Apostles withstands the 
Holy Spirit. After the descent of the Holy Ghost, the Apostles, 
it is true, taid most stress on the evsrb/e wonderful workings of 
the Holy Spirit. Put, surely, this was quite natural. For were 
they not the credentials of the Apostolate? Did they not serve 
to set a divine sea: of attestation on the preaching of Peter and 
the Apestles? How, otherwise, would Peter have dared, 
fearlessly and courageouly, to preach the kingdom of God 
before the pecple and the Sanhedrim ? How could he have 
throwa in theic teeth that they had “killed the Lord of Life?” 
“If it be just,” said they, ‘tin the sight of God, to hear you 
“rather than God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the 
“things which we have seen and heard.” (Acts Iv. 19. 20). 
To Ananias Peter addresses the solemn words: ‘Why hath 
“Satan tempted thy heart that thou shouldst lie to the Holy 
Boemicetr .. . . Lhou hast not lied’ to-men:but to: God.” 
(Acts v. 3 4.) ‘Why have you agreed together,” said he 
to Saphira, “* to tempt the Spirit oi the Lord?” (v. 9.) And 


6 L. ¢. 3, 99. 


222 THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE, 


although the whole Church is mentioned as present at the 
Apostolic Council, in addition to the Apostles and ancients, 
still the Apostles are conspicuously pre-eminent. They drew 
up the decree, of which they could say : ‘‘ It hath seemed good 
“to the Holy Ghost and to us.” (Acts xv. 28.) Clearly then, 
the visible manifestations were a sign of the invisible presence 
of the Holy Ghost, and of divine authority in the Apostles. 

6. But, it may be asked, how comes it, then, that Peter was 
previously uncertain as to whether the Gentiles should be 
received into the Church, and that a vision was necessary to 
make known to him that he was not to call common what God 
had purified ? (Acts x. 15.)* When the Holy Ghost fell upon 
Cornelius and “all them that were hearing the word,” “the 
“faithful of the circumcision, who had come with Peter, were 
‘astonished because the grace of. the Holy Ghost was also 
“poured out upon the Gentiles, For they heard them speaking 
“with tongues and magnifying God. Then Peter answered: 
“Can any man forbid water that these should be baptized, who 
“have received the Holy Ghost as well as we”? (x. 45-47). 
There have been some commentators, who thought that Peter 
fell into a dogmatic error, but there is no foundation whatever 
for such an opinion, The purely ritual and pedagogic character 
of the whole proceeding is too patent to have any wider 
importance attached to it. 

7. Still greater capital is made out of the famous scene 
between Peter and Paul at Antioch, as an argument against 
Peter’s infallibility. Peter must, it is said, have either forgotten 
or laid aside the Apostolic decree almost immediately. Grant- 
7 Didym., De Trinit. ii. 6, 133 iii, 19. ~ Cyrill. Alex.; in Joann. xvi. 12. 


Asterius, Auastasius, et alii. See Langen, 1, 10z3 2, 120. 


* A careffil perasal of the chapter will convince the reader that Peter was perfectly 
aware that the Gospel was intended to be preached and to bring remission of 
sins to all (x. 42). Again, the doubt which he had concerned first the meaning 
of the vision; and afterwards the sincerity of Cornelius in sending for him 
(x, 20), The question seems to have reduced itself t» one of opportuneness. 
He may not have known that all ritualistic scruples had to be set aside forth- 
with. Tor the rest, one fails to see why this revelation to Peter was not part 
of the divine assistance of the Holy Ghost, who continued to lead them into 
all truth. See the Author's remarks N. & TZ 


OO OO 


ST ee ee ee a ee 


THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE. 223 


ing the latter alternative, it is quite plain that the decrees of 
the Council were framed for Gentile Christians, while Peter 
and John ministered to the circumcision. Thus the Jewish 
Christians and Peter were perfectly free to keep the law. And 
this seems to have been the general practice till the destruction 
of the Temple. But had not Peter previously followed the 
usages of the Church at Antioch? Certainly. And S. Paul 
administers a sharp rebuke to him for changing: ‘ But when 
*“Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, 
“because he was to be biamed. For hefore that some came from 
** James, he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they were come, 
“he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of 
“the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews 
“consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that 
“dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly 
‘unto the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas before them 
“all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the 
“Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the 
“Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (Gal. II. 11-14). 

And what follows from this? Nothing more than that Peter 
in a point of discipline, which the Apostolic Council had left 
open, had yielded to the pressure of circumstances. He had 
given offence to the Gentile Christians, because till then he had 
gat at their tables; but he did not impose on them the 
obligation of imitating his subsequent conduct. At most his 
cxample may have perplexed their consciences,’ but the Jews 
might have been equally perplexed had he taken the opposite 
line of conduct. He was on the horns of a dilemma—that try- 
ing situation in which each one has to follow his own judgment. 
The spectacle of Peter rushing impetuously and boldly ahead, 
and then being quickly discouraged and falling batk again, 
Corresponds exactly with his character as pourtrayed in the 
gospels (the same may be said cf S. Paul’s sharp rebuke), but 
it has nothing whatever to do with his infallibility. 


@ See Dillinger, p. 62. 


224 THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE, 


Origen defends S. Peter’s action in both cases with the 
remark: “ It was fitting that those sent to the Jews should not 
“depart from Jewish customs, . . Nay Paul himself became 
‘a Jew to the Jews, and a Gentile to the Gentiles.”® Jerome 
certainly had Origen, Eusebius, and Clement in mind when he 
strove to represent the entire proceeding at Antioch as dis- 
simulation. Then arose the famous controversy between 
Jerome and Augustine, which ended in Augustine rejecting 
the theory of lying or dissimulation, and thereby placing the 
authority of Holy Scripture above all other writings. Jerome, 
who had previously taken another view, eventually silently 
acquiesced in Augustine’s.!0 To Junilius the story in the 
Epistle to the Galatians seems to be drawn with a free hand.!! 
Tertullian’s summing up is the simplest: “It was a fault of 
‘conduct not of preaching. He walked not according to 
“Gospel truth.” Other Fathers, indeed, take the incident as 
proving that even the Prince of the Apostles has made 
momentary mistakes in matters of faith. Such an explanation 
is advanced by Gelasius, Pelagius II., and Gregory the Great.!# 
But these Fathers and Popes were not drawing a distinction 
between matters of faith, strictly so called, and ecclesiastical or 
disciplinary matters. Their phrases, now bold, now mild, can 
be easily fitted unto Tertullian’s dictum. Vigilius’ conduct at 
Constantinople, which did not touch faith, is excused in this 


way by Pelagius IJ. In particular, it is most noteworthy that’ 


the Fathers draw no conclusion against Peter’s position. 
Rather, they emphasize his love of peace, and the humility with 


O77 Cres il. 3, 


ro C. Ruff, ili. 2. Dial. ce. Pelag. i. 22. Comm. in Ep. ad Philem. v. 8. 
Concerning the dispute between the two Fathers of the Church, see Mohler, 
Schriften i. 1 seq. Dillinger, Chr?stenthum, p. 62. Hergenréther, Handbuch 
der Kircheng. i. p. too. As to the dispute between Peter and Paul, see 
Overbek, Ueber die Auffassung des Streites, etc. Basel 1877. Holsten, 
Evanvel. des Petrus and Paulus, 1868, p. 278. 556. Metz, Die Antipe- 
trinische Rede des Paulus. Hamburg, 1881. Wetzel, Studien und Kritiket, 
1880, p. 432. Zimmer, Zeitschrift sur wissensch. 1heolog. 1882, p. 129. 


wx Justit. i. 6. Tertull., De Praescr. c. 23. 
ra Gvlas. ap. Mansi viii. 88. Gregor., Ja Ezech, ii. 6.9. Langen, Die Kirchem 
vater, p. 140 Unfehlbarkeit, p. 103. Hase, Polemik, p. 37- 


a ee Y= 


BT ER ee ae ee 


THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE, 225 


which he, the Chief of the Apostles, received S. Paul’s 
reprimand. 

8. Moreover, it should. te remembered that, in spite of the 
coming of the Holy Ghost, the Apostles did not receive from 
the outset the entire deposit of all revealed truth, or of the 
guidance of the Church. Circumstances were bound to arise 
in which leading principles could not be immediately applied. 
For the Apostles were not tools of dead machinery, but living 
witnesses of Christ. But they were fully persuaded that the 
Spirit of God would instruct and sustain them at the right time. 
Special revelations and inspirations rather confirm than preclude 


_ Apostolic infallibility. And from the life of S. Paul we know 


that, in the most important junctures of his missionary career, 
he was guided by special revelations from the Holy Spirit. 
Nevertheless he is conscious that he also possesses habitually 
the Spirit of God (I Cor. vii. 4c), Christ speaks through him, 
or he speaks in Christ (II Cor. ii. 17 seq; xiii. 3). The power 
of Christ dwells in him (II Cor. xii. 9). Hence he requires 
that his teaching and orders be obeyed. Nay, so sure is he of 
the truth of his Gospel, that he would not receive any other, 
even if it were brought by an angel from heaven (Gal. i. © seq.) 

Who, then, can doubt that the Apostles as a body considered 
themselves infallible witnesses of Jesus Christ, and as infallibly 
eulided by the “Holy Spirit in preaching the Gospel? Their 
doctrine is the doctrine of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, the 
truth coming down from the Father of lights. He that heareth 
them heareth Christ, and he that despiseth them despiseth 
Christ, and the Father who sent Him. He that denieth their 
teaching, denieth the faith and Christ and God, and compasseth 
his own destruction, The Holy Spirit leads the Apostles into 
the truth that Christ revealed, and gives them an insight into 
the mysteries of the kingdom of God, that Christ preached. 
They had not everything formally cut and dry. ‘They are but 


x3 Acts xiii. 2; xvi. 6.93 xx. 23; xxvii. 23. II Cor. xii. 1 seq. See Dillinger, 
p- 87. 


a 


226 THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE. 


little solicitous about building up a scientific system of faith, 
With them everything quivers with life, because Christ, the 
risen Saviour, who liveth and dieth now no more, is the centre 
of their faith and life. But the main features of their doctrines 
of faith are closely drawn to scale from the words and deeds of 
Jesus. These must be scrupulously adhered to under peril of 
“salvation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. 
How shall they believe unless they hear the word preached ? 
And how shall they preach unless they be sent? (Rom. x. 14). 

g. But S. Paul goes on to say that the Church built on and 
guided by the Apostles is the pillar and the ground of truth 
(I Tim. iii. 15). He does not speak of the Church in the 
abstract, but in the concrete, as it then existed. We admit 
that he does not expressly mention the teaching body of 
bishops. But, even if Paul meant that the ‘‘ entire Christian 
“commonwealth” was the pillar and ground of truth, at all 
events the teaching body was included (Ephes, iv.\. And we 
know from the pastoral Epistles, and from the character of 
those to whom they were addressed, that the teaching body 
was far from occupying the lowest place in the Christian 
commonwealth ; for at its head stood the Apostle himself. 
By speak ng o/ the house of God, and then adding immediately : 
“evidently great is the mystery of piety,” the Apostle shows 
that he meant christianity in its entirety, doctrines, and all that 
the whole Church holds in common, From this and similar 
passages taken by themselves, we can only conclude that 
infallibility exists in the Church founded by Christ, that is, in 
the Apostolic Church. For Christ left His Church without 
spot or wrinkle of error (Eyphes i. 23; v. 26 seq). He built it 
on the foundation of the Apostles and Frophets (11. 20). 

We thus glide from the infallibility of Apostles to that of the 
Church, S. Paul himself establishing the transition. In the 
Epistles that he wrote during or after his imprisonment, he 
must have been particularly anxious to extol that noble 
institution on which, after the death of the Apostles, the spirit 


THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE. 227 


of infallibility was to rest. We marvel how any one who 
recognizes that God’s word in Holy Scripture is infallible, can 
describe the infallibility of the Church as a “ groundless pre- 
“sumption.” 14 Why the scriptures, the human word of God, 
should be infallible, and the Church, the human work of God, 
should not be infallible, it is difficult to see. If, owing to the 
presence of the Spirit of God, the « believing Church,” the 
“house of God ” is the bearer of the truth ” of the gospel, it is 
assuredly preserved from “human error? What sort of a 
“pillar and ground of truth,” as the text says, would such a 
Church be? Must we not, with the Fathers, put to heretics 
this question: Would Christ allow the whole Church, or the 
greater part to err and persist in error? Does not a Church 
that disclaims infallibility snap asunder the bond that links it 
with the Apostles? ‘Any system or communion, or self- 
“called Church which disclaims infallibility, forfeits thereby its 
“authority over the conscience of its people.” 15 Infallibility, 
then, is not an arrogant assumption, but a matter of life and 
death for the Church. . 

9." Although the infallibility of the Church is closely con- 
nected with that of the Apostles, still the distinction between 
the two must not be overlooked. In the first place the 
Apostles were the immediate organs of divine revelation. 
Their main work was to complete and announce to the world 
the revelation of Christ. They were also inspired by the Holy 
Spirit to write, as occasion required. Hence, as organs ot 
revelation and first founders of Churches all over the world, 
they had each the gift of infallibility for himself. Even when 
they met together in council, it was rather to secure unity in 
preaching and guiding the Church, than from a dread of not 
possessing the true Gospel and the Spirit of God. In this 
re-pect the position of the Apostolate was unique. But from 
the very nature of things, the case is different with the success- 


14 Tschakert, Polemik, p. 21. 
15 Manning, Redigio Viatoris, 2 ed. London 1887, p. 66 


228 THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE, 


ors of the Apostles. They have only to administer the estate 
they have inherited. They have to guard the Apostolic 
deposit, to preach, explain, defend, and develop it accord’ nz 
to the needs of each succeeding age. They are witnesses to 
what they have received from the Apostles; not mechanical 
witnesses to words and formulas, but living intelligent witnesses. 
Their office as witness is at once human and divine: human, 
because the organs and the means employed (research, study) 
are human; divine because they are appointed or preordained 
by God, and assisted in their work by the Holy Ghost. For 
this reason it was not necessary for each individual bishop to 


be an infallible witness. Nay more, looking at the human sid2 - 


of the Church, w2 may say that the interests of unity were 
best served by the gift of infallibility being invested in the 
Church as & whole, as one organic body. Just as the Apostles, 
each holding universal jurisdiction, did not impart the same to 
each bishop, but by appointing a bishop over each town limited 
his jurisdiction to a definit2 place, so neither did the gift of 
personal infallibility attaching to the full Apostolic office pass 
on to each. In fact, tnfallibility remained exactly where it was. 
It was attached to the Apostolic power as such, that is, to him 
who succeeds to the full Apostolic jurisdiction, that is, to the 
occupant of the Apostolic See, and to all who by JA“ssio 
Apostolica have a share in his Apostolic power. To say that 
the Pope is personally infallible, and that the oecumenical 
council is also infailible is but another way of saying that the 
Pope is the real successor of an Apostle, and that the Bishops 
in union with him are the Apostolic succession. Infallibility 
is a divine gift linked to the Apostolate properly so called. If 
this were duly borne in mind, half the difficulties raised against 
it would vanish like a mist.* 


WU, THE INFALLIBILIT¥ OF THE CHURCH PROVED BY 
FORMAL TESTIMONY. 
10. We now prcceed to the Zustorical proof for the infalli- 


* The translators have deemed it expedient, in the interests of clearness, to amplify the 
criginal passage of the author. 


a ee ee 


| 
| 
‘ 
| 


THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE. 229 


bility of the Church. Here two ways are open to us. We may 
either bring forward testimony from every age to show that the 
Church has always believed in her own infallibility, or we may 
prove that she has never erred in faith and morals. The two 
methods combined will make the proof perfect. Beginning 
with the eurly Fathers, we see at once that they are not only 
careful to point out the necessary condition of infallibility, 
namely, unbroken Apostolic succession, but that they also 
affirm directly the gift of infallibility itself. ‘ For to the 
“Church,” says S. /reneus, “is entrusted the light, and conse- 
“quently the wisdom of God, by which all men are saved. 
‘Everywhere she preaches the truth. She is the seven-branched 
“candlestick bearing the light of Christ.”!6 The Church is 
the synagogue which God the Son Himself assembled, and 
united to Himself by the Holy Spirit. To all her doctrines and 
ordinances the prophets, apostles and disciples all bear witness. 
“For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God ; and 
“where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all 
“grace; but the Spirit is the truth.”!7_ As of old Jahve dwelt 
in the midst of his people to teach and assist them, and to give 
them grace, so now the Holy Spirit dwells in the Church to 
lead her into all truth, and to enable her to retain possession 
of it. “If the Spirit were to absent Himself,” says S. Chrysos- 
tom, “the Church would fall to pieces; but now that she 
“exists, clearly the Spirit of God is in her.”'8 These words 
are, as it were, a commentary on the famous passage from 
Irenzeus. 

Tertullian deduces the Church’s infallibility from her unity 
in doctrine and teaching. Such unity would be impossible 
without a special gift of the Holy Spirit, as it is most unlikely 
that a number of Churches would have gone astray in search of 
one error. “Grant, then, that all have erred ; that the Apostle 


16 Adv. Haer.v. 20. 1, 

BZ ipe S11. 6, 2% 24, Xo ' 

@8 Homil. de S. Pentec. 1 4. See Schell, Das Wirken des dreieinigen Gottes, Mainz 
4885, p. 5316 


230 THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE, 


“was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost 
““had no such respect to any one (Church) as to lead it into 
“truth, although sent with this view by Christ (John x1v. 26), 
‘and for this asked of the Father that tle might be the teacher 
“of truth (John xv. 26). [Grant also] tuat He, the Steward of 
“ God, the Vicar of Christ, neglected His office, permitting the 
“‘ Churches for a time to understand d fferently, (and) to believe 
“differently, what He himself was preaching by the Apostles,— 
“is it likely that so many Churches, and they so great, should 
“have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty 
“distributed among many men issues in one and the same 
“result. Error of doctrine in the Churches, must necessarily 
“have produced various issues. When, however, that which 
“is deposited among many, is found to be one and the same, 
“it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, 
“then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who 
“handed on the tradition?”19 And Origen says: ‘‘ Hence we 
“must pay no heed to those who say: ‘Lo! here is Christ,’ 
“but show Him not in the Church, which, from the rising 
“to the setting of the sun, is full of brilliancy and light; which 
“is a pillar and fortress of truth, in which dwells the Son of 
“Man who says to all men and all places: ‘ Behold I am with 
“you all days even te the consummation of the world.’” |S, 
Cyprian brings out in relief the several parts of the Church 
when he says: “ By the name Church, Christ pointed out that, 
“even when the proud and stiffnecked multitude of them that 
“will not obey depart, the Church does not leave Christ ; but 
“‘the peop’e that gather round the priests (bishops), and the 
“flock that follow the shepherd are the Church.” “ That then 
“is the Catnolic Church,” says £actantius, ‘which has the 
“true worship. She is the fount of life, the home of faith, 
“the temple of God. They who enter not or go out blight 
“their hopes of life and eternal salvation.”2 


19 De Praescr. c. 28, 
“ao Orig., /m Alatth. n. 47. Cypr., Ep. 66,8. Lact., /ustit. iv. 30 


| 


THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE, 231 


rr. Next we may ask: in what way do the Fathers conceive 
Infallitility? Do they, perchance, think that the Church “ of 
“the first three centuries triumphed over the many sects simply 
“with the weapon of the Apostle’s Creed, without an infallible 
“organ ?2!_ How, then, if the meaning of the Apostle’s Creed 
were itself in question? On the contrary, the Fathers knew 
nothing of a dead and formal mechanical tradition. They 
rather call the Church a living institution, They style it the 
pillar and ground of truth, and the light of Christ. They call 
to mind that the Holy Spirit works in the Church, and nowhere 
else. Nay, like S. Cyprian, they couple the names of the 
bishops, more particularly the Roman bishops, with the promises 
of Christ. We may ask furthermore, who made the Apostle’s 
Creed, and gave it its standing? How came it to be regarded 
as a summary of Christian truth? It was a compendium, as we 
have already shown, of what was believed in the whole Church, 
and in every Apostolic Church. It was the bishops and no one 
else who unueld the Creed as an ecclesiastical symbol ; who 
safeguarded unity in truth, and defended the Church against 
error and heresy, not merely by professing a dead formula, but 
with the living voice of authority. The creed was profess<d at 


baptism—then an Episcopal functicn,—at which the bishop at 


least imposed hands, and did the anointing. And thus, apart 
from the preaching office, the bishop was the watchman and 
guardian of the Apostolic faith. 

Why, too, are Irenzus and Tertullian so urgent in their 
appeals to the Apostolic succession, but to show that it is the 
condition on which the divine charisma of truth rests, and that 
in a living tradition lies the human security that Apostolic 
teaching has been kept pure? Individual bishops, certainly, 
were not infallible ; but the Church, as the union of bishops 
and faithful under one head, himself an Apostle, was infallible, 
If the Apostles themselves, in their lifetime, were an organized 
body, and the fruit of their labours was conditional on their 


st Hase, p* 16, 


232 THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE, 


mutual union, how much more necessary was this union after 
their death! Unity and infallibility are inseparable. The 
latter cleaves to the former as its indispensable condition and 
subject. if there wag one arrow more than another which the 
great apologists shot with unerring ceriainty at Gnosticism, it 
was that the Church as such cannot fal! into error. But the 
Church was represented by the successo:s of the Apostles in 
union with one another and with their head. ‘The ecclesias- 
“tical preaching,” says Oviven, “bas been handed down and 
“preserved in the Church to this day, by means of the 
“Apostolic succession.” This, then, is according to Origen, 
the relation in which the bishops stand to the Apostles ; they 
are the vouchers for the safe transmission of Apostolic truth. 
They are the tradition, ‘This is the rule with which he arms 
himself against those who think they know what Christ taught, 
and yet teach doctrines differing in many respects from what 
they had previously learnt.” In this lay the strength of the 
Catholic Church in ker duels with error: that in Apostolic 
succession she possessed a guarantee that Apostolic truth had 
been preserved pure and undefiled, and in the consent of the 
Apostolic Church lay the unerring witness of infallibility, 
Without the successors of the Apostles this would have been 
impossible, ‘They, as one solid compact body, were the organs 
of infallibility, | 
The Gnostics also appealed to Apostolic tradition, and set 
up aruie of faith. But the weakness ot Gnosticism Jay in its 
“inabilty either to prove the pudlic and official character of 
“its tradition, or to bring it into close connection with the 
“organization of the Churches.”® They lacked Church 
authority which guaranteed infallibility to the whole Church, 
because it was an authority handed down from the Apostles, 
and sustained by the Holy Spirit. They lacked, too, the 
“charisma of truth,” bestowed by God on the successors of the 
Apostles as a security that truth had been preserved and 


22 Le Princi~. i. % In Alatih. n. 46 
23. Hainack, p. 118. ote x. 


THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE. 233 


transmitted pure and undiluted.*# It is a charisma vouschafed 
only to those who are Christ’s. Authority is the dccisive 
element in infallibility ; for faith itself, in order to be a rule to 
our mind, stands in need of authority. Hence S. Augustine 
could say: “I would not believe the Gospel, unless the 
“authority of the Church moved me thereto.” “ Moreover, 
“those who, though they are not within the Catholic unity and 
“communion, boast of the name of Christians, are compelled 
“to oppose them that believe, and presume to mislead the 
“jgnorant by a pretence of appealing to reason, since the Lord 
“ came with this remedy above all others, that He enjoined on 
“the nations the duty of faith. But they are compelled, as I 
“said, to adopt this policy, because they feel themselves most 
“miserably overthrown, if their authority is compared with the 
“Catholic authority. They attempt, accordingly, to prevail 
“ aoainst the firmly-settled authority of the immoveable Church 
“by the name and the promises of a pretended appeal to 
“reason. This kind of effrontery is, we may say, characteristic 
‘Sof all heretics. But He who is the most merciful Lord of 
“faith, hath both secured the Church in the citadel of authority 
“by most famous cecumenical councils and the Apostolic Sees 
“themselves.” 25 Catholic truth alone passed as ¢Ae truth. 

12. Thus according to the faith of the ancient Church 
infallibility is linked with authority, and authority belongs to 
the Apostolic succession, that is to the bishops as one organic 
body. This being the certain persuasion and consciousness 
of the Church from the beginning, it would naturally find its 
chief expression in General Councils. There it would assert itself 
with peculiar force and clearness, And so, indeed, it has. 
fie sfirst’ Council—that ‘of \the Apostles 
pattern of all subsequent Councils. “ And the Apostles and 


has become the 


ancients assembled to consider of this matter. And when 
“there had been much disputing, Peter rising up said to 


24 Probst, Dis:7plin, p. 33 
es Aug., Z/. 118, 5, 32. (Clark’s Transl.) 


234 THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE, 


“them” etc. (Acts xvi. 6. 7). ‘For as much as we have 
“heard that some going out from us have troubled you with 
“words: subverting your souls, Zo whom we gave no commanda- 
“ment (vis ov SierreAdpeOa). For it hath seemed good to 
“the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you 
“than these necessary things.” (Acts xvi. 24. 28). (Hase 
imagines that the Holy Ghost here mentioned is nothing more 
than the sentiment or the genius of Christianity. In this case 
it would be wasting words to discuss the infallibility of councils, 
or any infallibility whatever). S. Cyprian writes in the same 
strain to Pope Cornelius on the Synod he had held a.p. 252: 
“It hath seemed good to us under the suggestion of the Holy 
“Ghost.” The Synod of Arles says: ‘It hath seemed good 
“to us in the presence of the Holy Spirit and His angels.” 
Constantine called the Synodal decree of Arles a “ heavenly 
‘‘judgment,” and he wished priests to respect it as though it 
“had been drawn up by our Lord Himself.2? Now it is quite 
true that in neither of these cases have we to do with a general 
council, nor does either represent, by itself, the universal agree- 
ment of the Church. Cyprian pointedly declared that he had 
no wish to force his decrees on others. Still, in any case, 
his words give expression to the conviction that true doctrine 
is and can be maintained only with the assistance of the 
Holy Spirit. Universal agreement had to be brought about 
in another way. In the case of the Africans we know exactly 
how it was effected, namely, by‘a clear acknowledgement of 
their union with the Roman See. 

The Fathers of Niceea believed that the Council had spoken 
in the power of the Holy Spirit, and that it-had been convoked 
by Him to destroy heresies.?8 Constantine says: “ What hath 
““seemed good to the three hundred holy bishops, must be 
“esteemed as the teaching of the only begotten Son of God.” 
26 Z£fist. 57, °§. 


27 Hefele, /.c. i. 2. 


® Athan., ad Afros c. § seq. Basil., Ef. 114. 162. Cyrill. Alex., Zf. 39. Gregor 
Naz.. Or. 21, 4 


te * 


hon ee re Dk eee SO en: oe ey ee ee eS oe 


THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE, 235 


The Council of Chalcedon formally declared: “We will neither 
“allow ourselves nor others to overstep by a syllable what our 
“Fathers at Niczea decreed. For we are mindful of the words: 
“T)isturb not the landmarks that thy Fathers have set. For 
“it was not they who spoke, but the Spirit of God Himself.”?9 
Pope Celestine begins his letter to the Synod of Ephesus with 
the words: ‘lhe Council of bishops bears witness to the 
‘presence of the Holy Spirit.” 

Speaking of the confession of faith adopted at Chalcedon, 
Leo the Great says that nothing must be added to a rule 
drawn up by divine inspiration.*° Against the Church’s judg- 
ment, he says, there is no appeal, as it excludes all doubt. 
God’s protection will never be wanting to the Church. Gregory 
the Great declares that he accepts the four Councils with the 
same reverence as the four Gospels.*! Pius IY. calls the 
Fathers of Trent divinely inspired. 

The whole course of procedure at Councils goes to shew that 
the Church in Council, while fully conscious of the assistance 
of the infallible Spirit, is also fully aware that it is but a means 
to aid her to lay down the faith that has been received without 
addition or diminution. The Council of Chalcedon introduced 
no innovation into its profession of faith, but affirmed the 
Catholic principle of Tradition, which recognizes in the general 
Apostolic belief of the Church the embodiment of revealed 
truth. As a rule, toc, the Councils give direct expression to 
this continuity of belief. The Fathers of Chalcedon declare 
that they affirm anew the true faith of the Fathers against 
heretics ; that they promulgate the creed professed by three 
hundred and eighteen bishops at Niczea, which the one hundred 
and fifty bishops at Constantinople, who accepted it, regarded 
as their own. ‘‘ While receiving the ordinances and decrees 
“regarding faith made by the former Synod of Ephesus under 


29 Mansi, Conczl. Cou. vi. 672. 
jo pist. 18,1. Leo. Zp. 102, 23 120, 43 162, 1. 3 See Hefele, i. 56 seq. 
gr ZZ. i. 25 (12). Cf. Corp. Juv. i. Dist. xv. @ & 


236 THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE, 


“Celestine and Cyril, we decree that the declaration of the 
“three hundred and eighteen Fathers at Nicazea should be as a 
“lamp to the true and spotless faith, and that the decree 
“drawn up by one hundred and fifty bishops at Constantinople, 
“in defence of the Catholic and Apostolic faith, be still 
“binding.” Moreover, they declare that they expand the 
decrees of former synods, not because they thought them 
insufficient, but merely to meet the attacks of heretics.32 After 
the formula had been read aloud, the Fathers shouted out with 
one voice: “This is the faith of the Fathers, and of the 
“ Apostles. To it we all assent. Such is the faith we p:ofess.” 
Again S. Vincent of Lerins says: To avoid innovations the 
Council of Ephesus adopted the best and most faithful and 
Catholic course, viz. to bring to light the teaching of the holy 
Fathers, some of whom were martyrs, others confessors, and 
all holy priests, in order that by proceeding in an orderly and 
solemn fashion, the sanctity of the ancient faith might be 
strengthened by their unanimous decision, and the blasphemies 
of profane innovators condemned. To say that the Church 
may decide questions that cannot be answered with certainty 
from the sources of faith, is not a new doctrine and in contra- 
diction to the teaching of the Fathers. Nor is “a direct divine 
inspiration” necessary. Of course the Church’s teaching office 
was not ordained for merely settling what among Catholics are 
called “theological controversies,” but for “giving decisions in 
matters of faith, which are based upon the authority of Scrip- 
ture and Tradition. Gencral Councils were instituted by the 
Apostles, and were the best means for voicing correctly the faith 
of all the Apostolic Churches, and for bearing witness to Apos- 
tolic teaching. Still we must beware of conceiving this act of 
bearing witness as a mechanical process. It is not the act of a 
moment, but the fruit of much care and labour. Were the 


32 Mansi, vii. 107. Hefele, 11. 468. 473. 
33 Commnzonit. c. 29. 
34 Langen, Un/ehivarkeit, p. 109. 


4» 
~— 


THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE, 237 


matter so easy and so simple, the long sessions would be 
unnecessary, and the heated debates with heretics unintelligible. 
The bishops could not guard and declare an old article of 
faith, except by explaining and defining it more closely. Hence 
they are not mechanical witnesses of the faith handed down, 
but living intelligent witnesses, doctors and bearers of the 
charisma of truth. “For this reason those in the Church 
‘must obey the priests who are the successors of the Apostles, 
“who, with the succession of the Episcopate have, according 
“to the decree of the Father, received the sure gift of truth.”%> 
13. This gift, however, did not confer infallibility on every 
individual pre-ordained witness [bishop]. Therefore it was 
quite possible that such Fathers as Athanasius, Augustine and 
others, while holding that the Church was certainly infallible, 
were not agreed as to the precise form and condition in which 
infallibility manifested itself. Hence arose the disputes in 
regard to Councils. How was their authority to be measured ? 
Not simply by the number of bishops present. There were 
other conditions requisite. Augustine begins by setting Holy 
Scripture above the writings of bishops, because its authority 
was above the realm of dispute. But the writings of bishops, 
if they deflect from the truth, may be censured by those who 
have greater knowledge or authority, by learned bishops, or by 
councils. He contrasts provincial councils with plenary synods 
summoned from the whole Christian world, and assigns to 
these latter a higher rank. But even among these last, he 
thinks, the later are often an improvement on the earlier, since 
experience opens out what was closed, or discloses what was 
hidden.*® But neither this phrase nor Gregory Nazianzen’s 
depreciatory statement on the human strife in vogue at synods”! 
can be twisted into an argument against the infallibility either 
of the Church or of general synods.*8 For Gregory was 
35 Irenaeus IIL. 24) te 
36 De Lact. Il. 2. 


37. Epist. 130 (al. §5). 
32 Hiase, p. 16. 


2338 THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE,. 


speaking, not of synods generally, hut of those which he had 


seen. And in a certain sense he was right. For, as a result,” 


evils, instead of being dissipated, thickened. So, likewise, 
Augustine had in view merely the African synods held with 
regard to baptism by heretics. Else he could not have said 
that later plenary councils had often improved on earlier. 
For, at that time, there were only two general councils, and of 
these two one, that at Constantinonle, obtained universal 
recognition only by slow degrees. Thus there remains only 
the one that touched upon the question of heretical baptism, 
the cecumenicity of which, on closer inspection, collapsed. 
That Augustine supposed that no cecumenical council had 
dealt with the question is clear from his words: ‘ Nor should 
“‘we ourselves venture to assert anything of the kind, were we 
“not supported by the unanimous authority of the whole 
* Church—to which he [Cyprian] would unquestionably have 
“yielded, if at that time the truth of this question had been 
“placed beyond dispute by the investigation and decree of a 
“general council.” Then he goes on to give the reason why 
this could not happen: “ For how could a matter which was 
“involved in such mists of disputation ever have been brought 
“to the full illumination and authoritative decision of a general 
“council, had it not first been known to be discussed for some 
“considerable time in the various districts of the world, with 
“many discussions and comparisons of the views of the bishops 
“on every side? But this is one effect of the soundness of 
“peace, that when any doubtful points are long under investi- 
“gation, and when on account of the difficulty of arriving at 
“the truth, they produce difference of Opinion in the course of 
“brotherly disputation, till men at last arrive at the unalloyed 
“truth, yet the dond of unity remains, lest in the part that is 
“cut away, there should be found the incurable wound of 
“deadly error.’”%9 


In these words the great doctor has furnished us with his 


39 £.¢.c. iv. (Clark’s Transl.) Also c. xv. 


i a 


a ee 


es 


THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE. 239 


complete view of the nature and character of councils. For the 
rest, the plenary council which actually brought the controversy 
to an end,* was not a General Council, as Augustine knew 
and expressly states. For, he says, Cyprian would not have 
been content with a plenary African Synod under Agrippinus, 
if “he could have appealed to a transmarine ce general 
(universale) Council for this object. Whether the general 
council referred to was that of Nicezea or the Synod of Arles, 
is a disputed point ; 41 but probably it was the latter. Further 
on he adds: “Cyprian, indeed, says that on this subject not 
“one but two or more councils were held; always, however, 
“in Africa. For, indeed, in one he mentions that seventy-one 
“bishops had been assembled, to all whose authority we do 
‘not hesitate, with all due deference to Cyprian, to prefer the 
“authority, supported by many more bishops, of the whole 
“Church spread throughout the whole world, of which Cyprian 
“himself rejoiced that he was an inseparable member.” * 

14. Nor, in point of fact have General Councils ever 
contradicted previous councils, The bishops at the Second 
Council of Constantinople (553 A.D.) put to themselves the 
objection that a condemnation of the three chapters lg:ema tie 
person and writings of heodore of Mopsuesta, the writings of 
Theodoret against Cyril, and the letter of Ibas to Maris, a 
Persian] would involve a breach with the Council of Chalcedon. 
The condemnation that followed was so construed by many. 
And even to this day, Protestant controversialists regard it in 
that light.48 It was, they say, “a condemnation of the faith of 
“two highly respected Fathers, long since dead, of the Eastern 
“Church, whom the Council of Chalcedon had pronounced 
“ orthodox. Thus the decree of one oecumenical council is 
“placed in formal contradiction with the decree of another. 
“The condemnation, they allow, affected only persons and 


40 De Baft. ii. chapters vii.-ix. (Clark’s Transl.) 
41 Hefele, i. 202. See also Note in Clark’s Transl. of Augs, de Baft. \. ii. cap. ix. 


42 De Bapft. iii. c. x. 14. (Clark’s Tr.) 
43 Hase, » 19. Strauss, Glaudlenslehre, i, 116. 


240 THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE, 


“writings, but they stood in immediate relation to a dogma.’ 
The two men alluded to are Theodoret and Ibas. For on the 
third concerned in the Three Chapters controversy, namely 
Theodore, the Council of Chalcedon had made no declaration. 
The objection made at Constantinople secrned plausible 
enough ; still it was overruled. For, at Chalcedon, Theodoret 
and Ibas had, in person, cleared themselves of ail suspicion of 
Nestorianism. Consequently they were re-instated in their 
Sees. Still, in so acting the Council by no means set a seal of 
approbation either on their former conduct or writings. ‘The 
“Tifth Council merely passed judgment on the past, without 
“in the least disputing the award of Chalcedon, and the 
“re-instatement of the two bishops. What was done at 
“Constantinople might have been done at Chalcedon, without 
“the least clash of contradiction. The decision of the Fifth 
“Council was objective . . . The most that can ‘be said 
“is that it is at variance with the votes of some few members 
“fof the Council of Chalcedon.” 44 

15. Nor does the alleged contradiction between the Council 
of Constance and the Fifth Lateran Council fare better. The 
former declared that a General Council is superior to the Pope, 
the latter that the Pope is above a General Council. But the 
controversy as to the oecumenicity of the Council of Constance, 
or of certain of its sessions, is still in full swing; and it will 
hardly be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. Sxill, granting 
lls Oecum=nical character, surely it can only be oecumenical in 
the sense in which it was confirmed by Martin V. and 
Eugenius IV. Now these Popes were particularly careful not 
to give it a general confirmation. They do not, indeed, say 
point blank which decrees are not included in the approbation. 
‘* But it is clear that both exclude from their approbation those 
“decrees which trench on the authority and rights of the Holy 


“See, that is, the decrees in sessions three to five.”45 It is 


44 Hefele, ii. 906, 


45 Hefele, i. 615 vii. 104. 367. Funk, Kirchengeschichte, p. 340, Note x. Schwane, 
Dogimengeschichte, ilie 5570 


* 


- 


THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE. 241 


not right, therefore, from a mere Gallican view, to allege 
these, to say the least, doubtful decrees against the infallibility 
of the Church, and thus create a forma: opposition to the 
Lateran Council. Anyhow, the entire Western Churcn siubse- 
quently espoused the cause of the Lateran, thus accepting 
Martin the Fifth’s reservation. 

The infallibikty of the Council coincides with the infallibility 
of the Church. Hence only those Councils can rank as general, 
which are of the whole Church as such, or which by common 
consent were raised to this dignity. In the last instance the 
decision on this point must rest, not with science, but with 
the Church. In this sense we can accept the statement that 
“© certain number of Synods, though differently assorted in the 
“‘ Hastern and Roman Churches, gradually acquired unqualified 
“authority throughout the whole Catholic Church, because by 
© a sort of inward necessity, they caused a definite train of ideas 
‘in regard to the nature of the God-Man to be recognized ; 
“55 that each subsequent Synod had first to establish its own 
“orthodoxy, by an unqualified acceptance of the Synodal 
“ decrees that had preceded it.”46 We have italicised the phrases 
“inward necessity,” and “ definite train of ideas,” as a testimony 
to the fact that Synods are dominated by the spirit of truth, 
not by caprice, and that they are in harmony with each other. 
Not theological hair-splitting but the deepmost general needs 
of Christian faith and life were the springs that set Synods in 
motion. And the result was that traditional doctrine was 
preserved unscathed, and expounded in its purity. 

16. Were Councils to be judged merely by their outward 
composition, the verdict would, indeed, often be doubtful. 
“The bishops assembled at Ariminum and Seleucia [a.D. 359| 
“trebled in number those at the Council of Nicza; and yet 
“their decrees were set aside, because they were not in 
“harmony with the “ definite train of ideas.” Yet the majority 
of bishops at Ariminum had previously re-affirmed the Nicene 


46 Hase, pe 1% 
K 


242 THE CHURCH INFAULIBLE. 


faith, and outlawed the Arian leaders. They had not the 
faintest suspicion that the Arians were attaching a double 
meaning to obvious words; for they did not believe hat priests 
would stoop to such trickery.47 When the Arian bishop 
Maximin appealed to the formula accepted by the three 
hundred and thirty bishops at Ariminum, Augustine replied : 
“Refer me not to writings that are not at hand to examine, 
“or that have no binding force.”48 As to the Synod: of 
Seleucia, dissensions among its members broke it up before 
any definite decision had been reached. At last, none but 
the Emperor had _ his way. So, notwithstanding the large 
number of bishops, a General Council is, in this case, out of 
the question. Again, the course taken by the Arian controversy 
shows that it was the Church’s infallibility and not merely 
the “inward necessity of a definite train of ideas” that 
triumphed. For, these may be a necessary logical sequence 
in error, viewed merely in its formal aspect. But in the 
Christian Church there is logical connection, because it holds 
the deposit of material trutb. 

17. Nor does the Latrocinium of Ephesus (449 a.p.} alter 
the aspect of affairs. Even had there been no sudden change 
of Emperor, Leo the Great would have taken care that it 
would never have been raised to the dignity of a General 
Council. Worldly motives and influences have, it is true, 
been at work even in General Councils ; but the subsequent 
attitude of the Church, long after the influences had been 
dead and buried, clearly showed on which side the Church 
and truth stood. The Synod of Constantinople (754 A.D.), 
composed of three hundred and thirty-eight bishops, styled 
itself cecumenical ; but it was not general in its representatives, 
nor was it generally recognized. The force of its decree against 
images was measured exactly by the length of the secular arm, 
Eastern patriarchs, outside the empire, equally with the Roman 


47 Hieron, ddv. Lucif. n, 19s 
48 Coll. c. Max. n. 45 


~ 


THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE, 243 


Church, declared against it; and the Lateran Council of 769 
went so far as to lay it under anathema.t? The authority of 
General Councils will remain unimpaired, so long as there 
is nothing better to set against them than such Provincial 
Councils. They are a standing eloquent testimony to Christian 
belief in the Church’s infallibility. To them we owe the 
preservation of unity. 

The authority of the Church has ever been paramount and 
decisive in this as in other matters. The decree of Gregory 
the Great on the five General Councils hitherto held ®° was 
embodied in the Canon Law.®! So likewise the profession of 
faith to be taken on cath by a new pope, which at the end of 
the ninth century recognized eight oecumenical Councils. For 
Councils held in the middle ages, Papal approbation was an 
understood thing, since, as a rule, they were held in Romé 
either under the presidency or supervision of the pope. 

18. Naturally, at the time of the Schism and the Reform- 
Councils, many learned men let fall phrases that were aimed 
against the authority of Pope and Councils. But such isolated 
expressions were too evidently the result of the depressing 
situation of the times to shake the principle of infallibility. 
Peter d’Ailly, who from his intimate relations with Benedict 
xi. and John xxu., and his connection with the Synods of 
Pisa and Constance, had learnt and felt the consequences of 
the Schism, in order to frame more peaceful regulations for 
pretenders to the papacy, thought it necessary to deny the 
infallibility of general councils.5? Nevertheless, he decided 
that councils were superior to the pope, changed his oginion as 
to the right and manner of voting, and his attitude to John xxut., 
veered round like a weathercock so often, that he cannot be 
allowed to pass muster as a competent witness against infalli- 
bility. “He often jumbles different views together without 
49 Hefele, iii. 410. 429. 438, 
so “fist. 25. Decret. I. Dist. xv. c. % 


5r Dist. xvi. 6.8. See Schwane, Zc. III. 514, 
$2 Kirchenlexicon, 2 ed. 1. 371. 


244 THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE, 


“discrimination: e.g., in regard to the origin of the primacy, 
“where he gives it as his view that the authority of the Roman 
“Church is derived principaliter from Christ, and secundario 
“from the Council.” By this, too, we may measure his other 
dictum: “ According to some great doctors a general council 
“can err, not only in matters of fact, but also in law, and what 
“is more in faith. To the universal Church alone belongs the 
“privilege that it cannot err in faith.” 53 And still more strange 
is his appeal to Luke xxu1. 32 as proving his thesis. In like 
manner Nicholas of Cusa changed his attitude towards the 
Council of Basle and the Holy See as circumstances dictated. 
The saying of S. Antoninus of Florence, if it be at all 
genuine, proves nothing against the general teaching of the 
Saint and the Church. Jt, too, must be explained by circum- 
stances. Amid the convulsions that marked the end of the 
14th and the beginning of the 15th centuries, it was not always 
easy, even for a Saint, to discern which was right. He says: 
“Even the Council can err, For although a General Council 
“acts for the whole Church, still it is not the whole Church, 
“but only represents it. Hence it is possible for the faith to 
‘be preserved in some individual; in which case, it may be 
“said with truth, that the faith of the Church does not fail. 
‘This was clearly the case in Christ’s passion, when faith had 
“died out except in the Virgin Mary’s breast; for all others 
“were scandalized. And yet Christ had prayed for Peter that 
“his faith might never fail.” 5 That Antoninus was actuated 
by zeal for the Church is well known. Thus he writes to his 
nephew, Giovanni, @ propos of the election of Calixtus TIT. : 
“\Ve must always think well of the Holy Father, and judge 
“His measures in a kindly spirit, more so than in the case of 
“any other living person. Nor should we take scandal at every 


53 Hardt, Const. Conc. Tom. II. p. 200. Hase, p. 20 Hergenrither, Kirchenge- 

schichle, 3 ed. 11. 674. 

54 Sustuna doct. p. iii. Tit. 23. c. 2, 6. Hase, p. 2x. See Civ. Cattol. Ser. vii. 
vol. v. p. 52, and vol. ix. p. 304. 573. 709, where the passage is treated as an 
interpolation. According to the account of the Marquis Palermo the code of 
San Marco in Florence justifies the suspicion of interpolation. 


ee 


aif sal 


THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE, 245 


“trifle. Christ steers Peter’s bark, and hence it can never 
“sink. At times, during the storm, Christ seems to slumber, 
“But, then, when there is need we must awake Him with 
“prayer and good works.” ®> These and such like isolated 
expressions, therefore, may seem to approximate to the Protes- 
tant view ; still they cannot throw into the shade the Catholic 
faith of these illustrious men. Forerunners of the Reformation 
they most certainly were not. | 

19. The Middle Ages looked at the Church much more 
freva within than from without. The indefectibility of faith as 
existing in the hearts of the faithful was the doctrine chiefly 
emphasized. And it was viewed in its effects, for no one 
denied the cause. Nevertheless this owe-sided view tended to 
obscure the Church’s active infallib lity, and thus in pert 
prepared the way for its denial. The tendency inaugurated by 
Occam, Marsilius of Padua, and John of Jandun, had broken 
the ground for the designs of Wiclif and Hus, and had in many 
respects shaken the authority of the Church to its foundation ; 
but the consequence of that movement went beyond the 
question of infallibility. A strenuous defender of Church 
authority and infallibility appeared in the person of Cardinal 
John Torquemada, who assisted at the Councils of Constance, 
Basle and Florence.*® 

zo.~ The appeal made by the Reformers to a General 
Council against the pope’s decision was dictated by the same 
spirit that had been endeavouring for a century to set up 
General Councils in opposition to the pope. But the appeal 
still proceeded on the assumption that General Councils could 
infallibly decide controversies of faith, When Luther first 
entered on his crusade against the doctrines and discipline cf 
the Church, he was most unwilling to challenge the authority 
of the Catholic Church. He passed as one struggling against 
abuses that were rampant in the Church. He took his stand 
55 Reumont, Briefe heiliger und gottesfirchtiger Italiener, Frieburg 1877, p. 144. 


56 Summa de ecclesia. Venet. 1561. See Scheeben, Dogmatk i. 101. Schwane, iii 
499- 805. 


246 THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE. 


on the authority of General Councils, till, in the disputations 
at Leipzig, he was driven into a corner by the decrees of 
the Council of Constance against Hus.5? Hence there was 
no need for the Council of Trent to draw up a formal definition 
of the infallibility of the Council, as it was taken for granted. 
Moreover it was also clearly affirmed in the introduction to 
the several sessions. And beng unwilling to kindle the flame 
of coitroversy within the Church’s pale, it.is easy to understand 
why the Council avoided the delicate topic of the relation 
in which the Holy See stands to the Council. But the Roman 
Catechism was unshackled by such considerations. Being an 
instruction to priests, it taught infallibility pure and simple. 
“As this one Church cannot err in teaching faith or morals, 
“because she is guided by the Holy Spirit; so all others, 
“who arrogate to themselves the name Church, being guided 
“by the spirit of the devil, must fall into most pernicious 
“errors of faith and morals.” 8 

21. Were the Reformers, perchance, when battling against 
the Church’s infallibility, disposed to relinquish their own? 
Or were not their efforts to accentuate their own in direct 
proportion to the vehemence with which they denounced hers ? 
Calvin at Geneva and Luther in Wittenberg anathematized all 
who ventured to tilt against their doctrines. Imitating S. 
Paul, Luther writes: “ There is not an angel in heaven, let 
“‘alone a man on earth, who has either the ability or the 
“presumption to correct my teaching. He that receiveth it 
“not cannot be saved, and he that believeth any other is 
“doomed to heli.”5 ‘ Luther’s whole life and career were 
“dominated by two fixed ideas: that the pope is antichrist, 
“that his own doctrine was specially revealed to him by God, 
‘‘and that it alone profited unto salvation.”® The formal 
principle which erected Holy Scripture into the one rule of 
57 See Mohler, q. 330. Funk, p. 393- Janssen, Geschichte, etc. ii. 83. 
58 P.i. c. 13. q. 16. See Bellarm. T. ii. 1. ii. de concil. auctorit. 


59 Werke, Wittenb. Edit. ii. 49. Eilanger Ed. 28 144. 
60 Janssen, l. c p. 83. Hase, p. a 


Nae 


THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE. 247 


faith apparently secured to the faithful full freedom of enquiry 
in matters of faith, But Luther, by declaring justification by 
faith alone the leading fundamental principle [material rule of 
faith], made himself the infallible authority for all his followers. 
Had the Catholic Church accepted this condition, Luther 
would never have left her. This, of course, would have meant 
that she would forswear her own infallivility and history for 
fifteen centuries, in favour of the supposititious infallibility of 
an individual who could show neither warrant nor credentials. 
By saying that “God had led him like a blind horse,” he 


virtually admitted that no proof of his divine mission was 


forthcoming. It may perhaps be more correct to say that the ~ 
Reformers ‘‘ plucked the eternal justice of their idea from 
“heaven,” and thus defied the rights of the Church that had 
been consecrated by centuries; but then the idea was their 
own, not the Holy Spirit’s. 

The material rule of faith, established by Luther, which 
destroys all free enquiry root and branch, becomes henceforth 
the principle stantis et cadentis ecclesie. And yet it contradicts 
the express declaration of Holy Scripture, or at most rests on 
the one-sided interpretation of just one passage (Rom. 111. 28). 
Symbolic confessions, again, can have no binding force, except 
in so far as they emanate from an infallibie authority. The 
formula concordiae not only rejects all errors that are broached 
against the three creeds—the Apostle’s, the Nicene, and the 
Athanasian—but also adopts the unaltered Augsburg Confes- 
sion, the Apology, the Smalcaldic Articles, and Luther’s two 
Catechisms. ‘Every doctrine in religion is to be made con- 
“formable to the model just now explained ; everything opposed 
“to it must be rejected and anathematized, as contradicting 
“this united declaration of our faith.”6! Any one who knows 
how this formula concordiae was hatched, will not be tempted 
to barter the infallibility of Trent for that of its authors. And 


6x P.J. Proem, III. 6. p. 578 


248 THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE. 


yet, till. quite recently, this formula was. binding on Protestant 
theologians. : 

Hence it is not true that the Reformers referred each one to 
his own heart as prompted by the Holy Spirit, and to Scrip- 
ture; it is not true that they left the interpretation of Scripture 
to science; least of all is it true that they denied the infailibility 
of every existing Church, although such denial is implied in 
their cardinal principle, which declares that the ideal Church 
or perfect Christianity was not contained in any of the historical 
churches.® This last idea grew up in the nineteenth century, 
not in the sixteenth. Luther was never minded to concede that 
the Catholic Church—‘‘the Babylonian whore,” as he called 
~ her—was a branch of the true Church. On the contrary, the 
more he was bloated with hatred of Rome, and drifted into 
Dogmatism, the more he was convinced, at least so he said, 
that he was establishing the true Church of Christ. For this 
reason Bunsen designates Lutheranism as “that unhappy, 
* unhistorical, unphilosophical . « « «  untheologieal and 
“ unevangelical dogmatism into which Luther, in the latter part 
Sof his life, was in a measure driven, to his own and Melanc- 
“thon’s chagrin.—a dogmatism that Lutheran Scholastics 
“subsequently developed and tried to build up into a Con- 
“ fescion.” That the ideal Church is, in a certain sense, never 
realized here on earth, goes without saying. But the idea of 
her Founder, that she was to be the infallible medium of divine 
revelation, must have been realized by the Christian Church 
from the beginning. The human organs on which the Church 
depends prevent her from fully realizing the ideal. YV.él 
however great and manifold her imper'ections, error in faith is 
not one of them. The Holy Spirit who guides and directs the 
human organs of the Church, assures her of the infallible 
possession of truth. 

22. But even apart from the compulsory symbolic confes- 
sions and the material principle of faith, it must at au events 


62 Hase, p. 36. Bunsen, Die Ze.chen der Zeit, 1855, LI. 132 


ee Ae 


> 


5 


oa 


THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE, 249 


be conceded that orthodox Protestants of the old school 
believed in the infallibility of the letter of Holy Scrip ure. 
Holy Scripture was set forth as the one and only judge, stand- 
ard and rule for testing all dogmas. The Creeds were regarded 
merely as explanatory witnesses of the faith. This belief in 
the creeds, so thinks Hase, and a Catholic’s belief in the 
infallibility of his Church, are to be equally subjective. “Still 
“there is a difference. Protestantism, by abandoning the 


“supernatural or rather unnatural doctrine of inspiration, 


“entered on a higher course of development; but if the 
“Catholic Church renounces infallibility, she must renounce 
“herself. For without it she ceases to be the perfect Church 
“blending the ideal with the real, and she has no right to 
“demand an unconditional submission of conscience.” ®& Is 
it at all likely that the Catholic Church will prove as pliant in 
renouncing infallibility, as modern Protestantism is in rejecting 
not only this, but every other view-of inspiration ? 

Men are now debating in what way they may still profess 
belief in the teaching authority of the Bible. With a flourish 
of trumpets it is proclaimed, as one of the discoveries of 
science, that the doctrine of the inspiration and infallibility of 
the Bible in detail is untenable.*t They who hold these 
views may certainly appeal to Luther, who uses language in 
regard to the Prophets that is utterly incompatible with the 
doctrine of inspiration. Nor is this all. It should not be 
forgotten that Luther rejected entire books of the Old 
Testament as uncanonical, because they tallied not with his 
doctrine of justification. Thus he set his own authority and 
infallibility on a higher pedestal than that of Holy Scripture. 
Holy Scripture can never, indeed, be wholly stripped of its 
supernatural character. Even to those who neither believe its 
in‘allibility, nor admit an infallible interpreter, it may offer 
some kind of comfort and instruccion, but cannot offer any 
63 Hase, p. 39. 


64 P. 79. Theol. Liter. Zeite. 1877. N. 24. Coll. 577. Déllinger, p. 422. Theol. 
Lites aturblait, 1884. p. 356. Rohm, Con/fessionelle Gegens “ize iii. 47. 


250 . THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE. 


certainty of faith. With the rejection of its divine authority 
the floodgates of doubt and unbelief are opened. As human 
nature without authority would never have reac! ed manhood ; 
as parents and tutors are necessary for a child’s education, so 
the religious education of a people and of the human race at 
large is impossible without a living infallible authority. ~ Facts, 
as every one knows, are stronger than theories. The 
entire history of religion testifies t'at authority is a necessity, 
and the history of Protestantism goes far to confirm its 
verdict. The rejection of the Church’s infallible authority 
has been prolific in appalling consec1ences. “ The subjec- 
“tivity,” says a Protestant critic, “that makes Christianity 
‘consist in the doctrine that each one must follow bis own 
“conscience, is an excrescence of Calvinism. Pietism, with 
‘its materialistic notion of conversion, grew out of Luthcr’s 
one-sidedness. Protestantism wavers ‘‘ between unbelief and 
belief in chimeras.” Febronius, Dr. Blau, Joseph II., and the 
German bishops at the close of last century must, we suppose, 
be reckoned as. hostile to the infallibility of the Catholic 
Church. Still, how flimsy and paltry is this tradition when set 
against the testimony of a long line of scholarly, saintly and 
illustrious men of all ages, from the days of Ignatius, Irenzeus, 
and Augustine to our own time! Whether Erasmus believed 
in it or not; whether or no the “liberal minded historian de 
“Tou,” as Hugo Grotius says, remained Catholic sith “thirty 
“exceptions ”; whether many Catholics were or were not in 
their inmost hearts in love with the doctrine—all this is beside 
the purpose. It cannot decide nor even influence, for a 
moment the question of principle. With such methods of 
inquiry, how would Protestants establish their belief in the 
infallibility of Scripture? in justification by faith alone? or in 
the divinity of Jesus? Was Christ not infallible, because the 
Jews did not believe? Did S. Paul not preach the true 
Gospel, because he was everywhere persecuted by the Judaizing 
section? We may, however, sct our minds at rest on this 


BS 


THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE, 251 


score, as we can say with reason that the overwhelming 
majority of Catholics still have a deep belief in the truth of the 
Gospel and the infallibility of the Church. 


Mtl. MATERIAL PROOF FOR THE CHURCH'S INFALLIBILITY. 


23. In the preceding pages we have given a full and formal 
proof for the doctrine of the Church’s infallibility from Holy 
Scripture, Tradition, and Historv. There is yet another way 
of demonstrating the same truth, namely from actual facts. 
Can it, then, be shown that the Church, as a matter of fact, 
has never erred? In order to answer this question, we must, 
in the first place, refer the reader to chapter I. For the 


question as to the Churcli’s infallibility has no meaning except 


for such as acknowledge in Christianity an infallible revelation ; 
and then it reduces itself to this: Has the Church guarded 
with fidelity and interpreted correctly the deposit of revelation ? 
But who is to be the arbiter to decide the point? ‘The 
individual judgment cannot be accepted as referee in this 
any more than in the formal proof. When, however, we 
see the entire Catholic Church in the second, third, fourth 
and following centuries loudly declaring that she teaches 
nothing but what she has received as Apostolic truth, and 
what is in agreement with Holy Scripture, we have surely the 
greatest security that can, humanly speaking, be expected. 
With regard to the Arian and Christological controversies, 
which were decided by the old Councils, the Reformers, as 
we have already remarked, admit the fact and quite agree 
with Catholics. In what, then, does the error of the Old 
Church consist ? 

24. The doctrine of the A/7/enium,* which is said to have 
found wide acceptance in the Christian Church in the second 
and third centuries, is sometimes referred to as a case in point. 
* That is, the opinion which holds that before the general resurrection the just will rise 

first and be gathered round Christ on earth in the city of Jerusalem, and will reign 
with Him for a thousand years. The opinion seems to have originated with Papias 


and was confined to Asiatic writers. For a full historical and theological exam- 
ination of the question, see Franzelin, De Div. Trad. Thesis xvi. Tr. 


252 THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE. 


But in its crude form as an earthly sensual kingdom, lasting 
for a thousand years, it was far from obtaining general credence. 
In its ideal form, as belief in the near approach of Christs 
second coming, and the beginning of the eternal kingdora, 
it was certainly widespread. Still it furnishes no argument 
against the Church’s infallibility. Surely our Lord Himself 
said that neither the angels in heaven, nor even the Son of 
Man knows the day and the hour. S. Paul believed that 
Christ’s coming was near at hand, and pointed out certain 
signs that are to precede it. Hence the Fathers often thought 
that they detected these signs. If God, in His infinite wisdom, 
has been pleased to conceal the time in order to compel men 
to be always on the watch, there could be no error in faith, 
if Christendon often thought the moment close at hand. 

25. The next and perhaps chief instance alleged against 
infallibility is the covsti/ution of the Church, as involving 
episcopacy and primacy. But, in the eyes of Catholics, this 
is not a departure from truth. Only Protestants, and some 
Easterns, so regard it. Catholics, as we have already seen, 
and shall see again later on, are able to appeal with good 
reason both to Scripture and to a chain of Tradition that 
stretches back to the second century. 

26. Again, the Reformers contended, and many Protestants 
still maintain, that in the middle ages the Church became 
Pelagian. But proof for this statement is not forthcoming either 
from the writings of theologians, or from the lives of Christians 
during that period. Impartial Protestants undisguisedly admit 
that religious life developed even at that time in an ascending 
and not in a descending scale. Instead of contrasting medizeval 
piety with that of the so-called precursors of the Reformation, 
they concede that the piety of the Middle Ages was quite 
different from what the Reformers had conceived it. Their 
doctrine of justification by faith alone, and of the worthiessness 
and sinfulness of good works is a downward leap from the 
entire belief of antiquity. No one will ever dream of making 


THE CHURCH INFALTIBLE, 253 


this a landmark in the development of ecclesiastical doctrine. 
Here we neither have Apostolic doctrine unchanged, nor a 
logical development therefrom, but a formal change. Even 
if infallibility consists merely in ‘* victoriously defending, under 
“a divine shield, the doctrine handed down by the Apostles 
“against all innovations; in successfully guarding it against 
“misunderstandings and misinterpretations, and in preserving 
it to the end of time without change or increase or diminution,” 
the Protestant doctrine of justification could lay no claim to 
this protecting shield. 

27. Hence Hase’s contention is thoroughly inaccurate. 
“Forsaken alike by Holy Scripture and a firm ‘Tradition, the 
“Church’s infallibility is at last made to rest on the philosophi- 
“cal basis of its supposed necessity. Christ must, forsooth, 
“have instituted a sure and certain means of defining the 
“true sense of the Bible, of deciding all controversies of faith, 
“and of safeguarding the unity of the Church. Now this 
“means can only be a supreme ecclesiastical board, exempt 
“from all error, issuing in God’s name infallible decrees, to 
“which all who wish to be saved must submit. The Church 
“must be free from error, for the faithful trusting in her 
“cannot be led astray.” 6 

“ Forsaken by Holy Scripture!” Yes, if modern Protestants 
are privilezed with infallibility in interpreting Scripture, and are 
free to explain away the plain and obvious sense of all the 
passages we have adduced. Those modern Protestants, too, who 
more or less give up inspiration, and sacrifice Christ’s divinity 
along with the Apostles’ Creed! Strange to say, the older 
Protestants thought otherwise, and so did the Reformers, who 
appealed to Holy Scripture precisely in order to prove the 
universal infallibility of all believers. In combating the infalli- 
bility of the Catholic Church, they were far from denying their 
own, or that of Holy Scripture, or their own infallible interpre- 


65 Langen, dc. p. 28. 
66 P.39. See Mohler, p. 336. 


254 THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE. 


tation of Holy Scripture. Nay, they claimed it with all the 
more vehemence. But orthodox Protestants are even now 
constrained to admit the infallibility of that “Church whose 
“ essential constitutive principle lies in the Holy Spirit of God,” 
because they would otherwise be in too glaring contradiction 
with Christ’s infallible truth. 

28. “Abandoned by a firm Tradition!” In spite Obs. 
Augustine’s saying that any reasonable man, in doubt as to 
where to look for the true religion, would go forthwith and 
enquire at the Catholic Church, which is as ancient as the days 
of the Apostles, and is the most widespread ! Catholics, he 
thought, need not be afraid of puny sects, Many heresies have 
already passed away. Like brooklets they run their little course 
as long as thev can; but they have ceased to flow ; they are 
dried up; and their very names have vanished, Augustine 
enumerates eighty-eight such heresies, Theodoret seventy-six, 
and Bellarmine two hundred. So completely, he says, are they 
effaced from memory that not merely themselves, but even 
their books, doctrines and names, yea all traces beyond such 
references as are found in Catholic works, have vanished. 
Abandoned by Tradition! Yes, if exceptions, and .wery rare 
exceptions, upset instead of proving a rule, and if a doctrinal 
system hedged round with precise formule is demanded at the 
outset. With the early Christians belief in the Church’s infalli- 
bility was identical with belief in the perennial infallibility of 
Christianity. But in the Apologists of the second century, and 
in the later Fathers, reflexion developed this belief into con- 
scious conviction. Even the frightful havoc and confusion 
created by Arianism could not shake this conviction in tre 
Church’s infallibility and indefectibility. S. Jerome, who had 
cbserved that the world was astonished to find that after the 
synod of Seleucia-Rimini, it had become Arian, goes on to 
say: ‘The barque of the Apostles was in danger. The winds 
“and waves beat against it on all sides. All hope had fled. 
“fBut] the Lord is awakened, and calms the storm. The beast 


THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE. 255 


‘dies, ana peace returns.” The prophecies about the universal 
Church have, he says, become true. ‘Where, I ask, are those 
‘men, too pious to be profane, and too profane to be pious, 
“who contend that there are more synagogues than Churches ? 
“ How the strongholds of the devil have been battered down! 
“and how, at the end, that is, in the fulness of time, idols will 
“be lopped down!” 68 In the West, Ambrose could not find 
more than two hotbeds of heresy. ‘As far as the ocean, in 
“every direction, in every province and in every house there 
“floats the one unsullied banner of faith.” In the East, he 
notes with gladness, after the Arians had been driven forth from 
the churches, which they had violently invaded, none but 
Catholics frequented them. Could there be a more living and 
deeper conviction that the Catholic Church was both infallible 
and insuperable? Could these Fathers have possibly thought 
that the whole Church, as Deere in General Councils, 
could fall into error? 

The infallibility of the Catholic Church was, it is true, 
challenged by Wiclif and Hus, Calvin, Zwingli and Luther. 
Does, perchance, the “ firm tradition” begin here? Did they 
not call in question many other doctrines which are now 
regarded even by their own supporters in a different light ? 
Do their explanations of most important passages of Holy 
Scripture still hold good with the majority of Protestants P 
Is it wonderful that men who cut themselves adrift from the 
Church, should strike a blow at her infallibility ? or that, in an 
age glutted w:th rationalistic tendencies, some Catholic scholars 
and even bishops were drawn into rejecting it? No one will 
be surprised at this who reflects that many other truths, un- 
doubtedly contained in Holy Scripture, were then slaughtered 
as a lfecatomb at the shrine of the Moloch of Rationalism. 
There is no proof from Scripture and Tradition for the favourite 
theory that God was pleased so to shape the course of history, 


68 Hieron., Adv. Lucif. n. 19,15. Ambros., Zp. 12,3. Aug., Enarr. in Ps. 57, 16> 
Bellarm., 2. ¢ 4, 6. 


256 THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE. 


that the Spirit of Jesus was to lead Christendom into all truth 
only by slow degrees and through many dark and tortuous 
windings. To say that the several rival confessions approxi- 
mate more or less nearly to the ideal Church at which we are 
aiming,® means either that the earlier confessions must be set 
down as defective, or that the latter are a mere numan effort. 
Both sre in contradiction with the idea of Christianity set 
forth in Scripture, and in vogue in the ancient Church, Both 
rob faith of its sure and infallible basis. 

29. ‘‘ Made to rest on the philosophical basis of tts supposed 
necessity.” What have we to say in regard to thss third charge? 
We must, indeed, plead guilty, There is, we confess, a 
clearly reasonable basis for the infuliibility of the Church. 
There is, we admit, a necessity. Mohler has given prominence 
to this side of the proof in his beautiful and spirited treatise. 
But he was not the first in the field. The Fathers likewise had 
taken it for granted. They looked upon it as an immediate 
consequence of the promise that Christ and the Holy Spirit 
would abide in the Church to the end of time. Why should 
not such a necessity be admitted to lie at the basis of divine 
wisdom and goodness? Ancient philosophers claimed a sort of 
necessity for civil government because man, as an animal sociale, 
has certain duties to his superiors and inferiors. As a rule the 
civil and religious order went hand in hand, when they were not 
wholly blent in one. Even the Greeks, famed for their tolera- 
tion, in their state policy made belief in the gods a necessity, 
and punished atheists with death. Now if, in Christianity, 
absolute truth has been given for all ages, is it unreasonable to 
assume that in this religious society established by God Himself, 
there should bea similar necessity corresponding to its alsolute 
character? Is it senseless to believe that God has made pro- 
vision for revelation to be handed down infallibly to all men, of 
all ages and climes, to profit them unto salvation? The Church’s 
end and aim, and the essential nature of faith, are equally 


69 Kohler, 7heol, Liter. Zeitg. 1888. Nr. 3. col. 6a 


a 


THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE. 257 


clamorous in demanding an infallible, visible authority on earth. 
A few words will suffice to shew this. 

The fabric of Christianity rests wholly on the. person of 
Christ, the God-Man. The value of the werk of redemption 
and man’s salvation hang on belief in His person. Every error 
relative to the person of Christ exerts a more or less restraining 
influence on the piety and virtue of His disciples. Right 
knowledge, on the other hand, provides a deep foundation 
for saintliness of life. In like manner a clear consciousness 
of Christ’s work will bring forth the richest and finest fruit ; 
whilst distorted notions abovt it, on any point whatever, are 
sure to be attended with many backslidings in practical life.”70 
Is, then, the conclusion merely philosophical, that belief in 
the person of Christ has not been left exposed to “ every wind 
“of doctrine?” Allowing that man is neither “feather-brcom 
“nor wind-bag,”?! still, according to S. Paul, the security 
against shipwreck in religion, lies precisely in the institution of 
an infallible Church. ‘That we may not now be children, 
“tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of 
“doctrine, in the wickedness of men, in craftiness, by which 
“they lie in wait to deceive.” (Ephes. iv. 14). The history 
of Christianity teems with the aberrations of men who suffered 
themselves to be tossed to and fro by every wind. Without 
the infallibility of the Church, self-conscious science and worldly 
libertinism would long since have defaced Christianity beyond 
recognition. Infallibility follows so necessarily from the ideas 
of an infallible Christ and an absolute revelation, that the 
only question is where to find it. Modern Protestants, who 
hold that each fraction of a Church is lit up by broken rays 
from the one light of Curistian truth, and who seek to focus 
these broken rays in an ideal Church in the distant future, 
may renounce all claim to it; but the Catholic Church. has 
ever lived in the conviction that Jesus dwells in her with 
His Spirit, to guard her from all error in faith. 


7o Mohler, p. 339. Cf. S. Thom. ii. ii. q. i. a. g. Schwane, iii. 54s 
7x Hase, p. 29, note 54. 


258 THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE. 


One would naturally have supposed that our attempts to 
set the positive teaching of the Church on a philosophical basis, 
would not have encountered serious opposition from Protestants, 
for they claim a ‘“‘reasonable service of God” as peculiarly 
their own. Nay, they stake the very existence of their Church 
on it. The maintenance of the Evangelical Church as such, 
says a learned Protestant divine,” will depend entirely on the 
question whether the problem proposed by Ritschl is soluble 
and is really being solved. ‘Churches that have stripped 
“religion of priests and mysteries are, by their very origin, 
“forced to build their foundation on a reasonable worship 
“Aoytxi) Aarpeia], and to give their members a real under- 
“standing of the Christian religion. ‘The moment they would 
“renounce this aim, even should they be able to hold their 
“ground for centuries alongside the Catholic Churches, their 
“continuance would then rest on the same foundations that 
“ secure to Catholic Churches a long duration, viz. on authority, 


custom, and vague sentiments.” * 


30. In Hase’s opinion the infallibility of the Church is 
simply one of her ‘“‘grand and brilliant dreams.” She was 
compelled, by the peculiar circumstances of the times, to claim 
it. “Exalted above all human error she would be able to 
“bear the weight of the mighty, though tottering, Roman 
“empire, and to accustom to discipline and piety the rude 
“races that, in the vigour of youth, had suddenly become 
“ nossessed of the vast riches of a corrupt civilization. She 
“would be able, too, in the midst of a semi-christian and 
“ semi-heathen civilization, to save such unity of Christendom 
“as existed, from being split asunder into sects.”78 And how 


72 Harnack, Theol. Liter. Zeitg. 1837, nr. Be 

73 Hase, p. 41. 

* After this the author goes on to quote a whole page of admissions from Protestant 
writers ofthe Schoul of Ritsch! which the translators have omitted, as they deem 
it sheer jargon, of a sort at once unintelligible and untranslateable. Their drift 
seems to be this, that a Church as such, with a positive creed,—were It oaly 
the one article of the infallibility of the Bible,—stands condemned at the bar 
of history, as well as of philosophy, if it be not infallible. No Church or community 
can exist and hang together on the mere sentiment of vague trust in Christ. Tr. 


Sys 


ay 


Re an {es 


THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE. 259 


would this gigantic task have been accomplished by a “ brilliant 
‘““dreame” Persecutions were weighing her down; the nations 
were unsettled and in a state of upheaval; heresies were beating 
at her gates. How could the Church have held hér ground 
against these foes as an unassailable authority, had she not 
been imperishable and infallible? To say that this “dream” 
was necessary, is to concede that the history of the Church 
without infallibility is an enigma. Is it less necessary in our 
own day? The same author thus continues his lamentation : 
“When will the day dawn, when whole nations shall again 
‘combine religious earnestness with spiritual manhood to such 
“fa degree, that they will neither need nor tolerate an infallible 
** Church which, if it exists, must needs enslave the mind?” Does 
net the alternative at present le between an infallible Church 
and unbelief? Jt is now mere evident than ever that Christianity 
is being gradually rejected wherever the authority of the visible 
Church is being denied. On the other hand, the authority 
of the Church supports whatever in the Christian religion rests 
on authority, i.e. the Christian religion itself, ‘so that Christ 
“is an authority with us only in so far as the Church is an 
“authority.”7* An authority that holds sovereign sway on the 
most important occasions of man’s life, an authority to which 
the absolute revelation of the God-Man has been entrusted, 
and in which the God-Man continues to dwell, is nothing if 
not infallible, unless, indeed, everything is to be swallowed 
up in uncertainty and doubt, unbelief and superstition. This 
internal and external grounds, reason, history, Scripture and 
Tradition, unite their forces to establish the Church’s infallibility, 

In conclusion, we will once again let a Protestant theologian 
speak for himself. Professor Sohm had said that “the 
“(Lutheran) Confession is the great ruling power in the 
“Church, and that it ought to be again enthroned.” Where- 
upon Harnack observes: “I cannot but think it very remarkable 
“that our age, in spite of the noble strides it has made towards 


974 Mobler, p. 340-342. 


260 THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE. 


“ progress, should at last throw itself into the arms ofthe old 
“confession. For one is easily persuaded that one believes 
“such articles, when the need arises. But it could hardly 
‘be the Lutheran confession. Take for instance the proposition: 
«The confession is in truth the great ruling power in the 
“¢Church.’ Speaking as a Christian, theologian, and historian, 
“T say that this reminds me of no institution but the Roman 
“Church. For outside the Gospel, in all that goes by the name 
“of Church, there is but one great power, and that is the Pope 
“of Rome.” “As Evangelical Christians we are battling with 
‘“‘a formidably entrenched foe, the spirit of the world and the 
“time-spirit. Yet we are divided in our own camp, and 
“weakened by an internal crisis that no amount of good-will 
‘can set at rest. The romantic, philosophical means by which 
“two generations explained away the opposition between their 
“belief and that of the old confessions, are spent. In this 
‘Cave of Realism, history has blown them to the four winds. 
“ There remains naught but authority to maintain the old faith in 
‘its entirety. But ruled by authority, Evangelical Christianity 
“will, sooner or later, have to take to flight. The fifteenth 
“century is again repeating itself: A forward movement 
“has been carrying Christian and Ecclesiastical principles 
“fauthority] upwards since the beginning of this century till 
“our own day.”7®  Beyschlag detects this special danger 
in the situation: that the Catholic Church ‘demands blind (}) 
‘submission to authority, and imposes superstition (!) not 
“only on its own adherents but also on Protestants.”76 If this 
last be true, as we would feign hope, all who love the Christian 
religion will be truly thankful Those among Protestants who 
are impressed by the authority of the Catholic Church, have 
undoubtedly good reason for fixing their gaze on the Church 
of their fathers, especially when they see that the only counter- 
75 “ad Kirchengeschichte im Grundriss. Leipzig 1888. p. 175. Harnack, dc. Nr. 3. 
Col. 54. 


y6 Beyschlag, Die Religion und die moderne Gesellschaft. Haile 1887. See Theol. 
Liter. Zeitg. 1888, Nr. 6. Col. 143. 


~ deel 


THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE. 261 


poise to their internal disunion which the Protestant party can 
suggest is the civil power.”7 But the human mind has at last 
found the inconsistencies aud moral bankruptcy of Protestantism 
unbearable. Consequently there runs through every thoughtful 
and religious Protestant mind a deep vein of pessimism and 
gioomy foreboding. It is the latest testimony to the fact that 
without an infallible authority religion has no sure footing. 


IV. NATURE AND EXTENT OF INFALLIBIELITY. 


31. In what the essence of the Church’s infallibility lies, 
and how far it extends, may easily be gathered from the 
foregoing. The end and office of the Church js man’s eternal 
salvation. Only such matters, then, as immediately bear on 
this end can be the object of an infallible decision of faith. 
And since, moreover, the Church must gather from God’s word 
in Scripture or Tradition what does regard faith and morals, it 
is clear that new revelations or inspiration are out of the 
question. 

In contradistinction to the positive action of the Holy Spirit 
in inspiration, it is usual to call the act by which He preserves 
the Church from error in decisions of faith and morals, by the 
name of “‘assistentia.” Though the Councils of Trent and the 
Vatican refer the limitation as to faith and morals directly to 
the interpretation of Holy Scripture, still a fortiori it holds good 
in all positive final decisions. Infallibility, however, extends 
only to the formal decisions or definitions. ‘The overwhelming 
majority of theologians hold that the motives and proofs of the 
definitions are not immediately of faith.7® Not, indeed, that it 
is to the faithful a matter of indifference how the Church 
proves her definitions. For, as the consent of the Fathers is of 
great importance in matters of faith, so the consent of bishops 
assembled in Council from all countries is of still greater moment. 
97 Kawerau, Uber Berechtivung und Bedeutung des landesherrlichen Kirchen- 

regiments, Keil 1887, Col. 144. 


y8 Melchior Canus, I. Thes. v. 5. Stapleton, Principia fideé vi. to. 13. Scheeben I. 
137. Heinrich [. 768. Kirchenlexicon, 2 ed. IIL. 804. 


262 THE CHURCH INFALLIBIE. 


For these are precisely the means which the organs of the 
Church have to employ, in order to attain, by the assistance of 
the Holy Ghost, to the knowledge of revealed truth that has 
been committed to the Church. The Church’s infallibility is a 
gift of the Holy Ghost. Like every other gift, it must be set 
in motion by man’s action, reason and will, subject to God’s 
directions, although the result be independent of these ; for it 
is a question not of personal salvation but of the welfare of the 
Church at large. This comparison with grace comes all the 
nearer home, as, according to the proposition repeatedly laid 
down by S. Augustine in his doctrine of grace, God prepares 
the good will. As Christ promised and sent the Holy Spirit to 
the Apostles and their successors, so, when discharging col- 
lectively the infallible office of teaching, the necessary wisdom 
and power can never fail them. 

32.1 The question as to the zafure and extent of infallibility 
properly belongs to dogmatic, not to apologetic theology. But 
as it is so important to have a clear view of the Catholic 
doctrine we give the main points. It will be best answered by 
resolving it into separate questions. (1) What kind of a divine 
assistance does it imply [genus infallibilitatis]? (2) Who are | 
they that are so assisted [subjectum infallibilitatis] ? (3) When 
are they so assisted, that is in what acts objectively considered, 
or in what province of truth [objectum_ infallibilitatis]? 
(4) In what acts subjectively considered [forma infallibilitatis] ? 
The main principles for answering these questions are all 
contained in the preceding chapters. 

(1) In the first place, the infallibility clairaed by the Church, 
as the divinely appointed teacher of revealed truth, is what is 
technically and specifically called assestance. It does not 
consist in an act of revelation on the part of God; nor is it 
inspiration, properly so called; nor suggestion of thought by 
-word or vision, as in the case of the Prophets and Apostles. 
For revelation, as was shown in chapter I., was closed with the 
Apostles. But the very term assistance implies that the 


THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE, 263 


Church is doing a work in itself human—the work of a human 
witness. It is her duty to study, to inquire, and investigate 
from all the sources at her command, from Holy Scripture, and 
tradition, and her own living faith and practice in the past and 
in the present. Some truths revealed by the Apostles she has 
always explicitly confessed ; others which were but implicitly 
contained in revelation have to be developed and brought to 
light, as the need arises ; it is in the latter case that the human 
element comes chiefly into play. Here she requires a special 
help from God, to prevent her from arriving at a final and 
definite conciusion at variance with revelation, And be it: 
noted, it is the conclusion, not the arguments or their logical 
force, that is infall‘ble ; it is not the preliminary steps but the 
final testimony that is divine, owing to the assistance of the 
Divine Spirit who would warn the Church from a conclusion, 
were it not contained in the Apostolic deposit. Great, indeed, 
and unique is the force and authority of her human testimony, 
but of itself it would not be 1’ at absolute and infallible testi- 
mony which, from the very nature of things, is requisite in an 
act of divine faith on the part of the believer. Or, in other 
words: The Church is assisted by the Holy Ghost, whenever 
she explicitly proposes a truth to be believed as revealed. But 
such explicit proposition was necessarily limited in the 
beginning and must grow with time; consequently there will 
be infallible definitions, and in this sense, new articles of faith, 
as time goes on. In this explicit proposition of revealed truth 
the Church is not a purely human witness to a fact of the past, 
but an official and divinely appointed witness, assisted by the 
Holy Ghost. Still this presupposes her human testimony ; 
she has to verify the fact in an intelligent human way. 
Doctrines, therefore, so proposed by the Church are indeed the 
word of God; not because they are so proposed, but because 
they have been formerly revealed by God. The infallible 
proposition only tends to give us absolute certainty that it is 
the real genuine word of God. 


264 THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE, 


(2) To whom, then, is this divine assistance promised and 
given? The answer is no longer doubtful. It belongs to the 
divinely appointed official witnesses. It appertains in reality 
to the Apostolic office, and consequently to those with whom 
the Apostolic office and power rests. Now, as we have seéen 
above, individual bishops have not full Apostolic power ; their 
surisdiction is limited to their diocese; and, again, that juris- 
diction, including the power to teach and testify, is received 
from an Apostle, and may be taken away by him, and against 
his will there is no appeal. A bishop, in order to make even 
his limited jurisdiction truly Apostolic, requires #?ssio apostolica, 
This holds good for all times. Without such connection with 
an Apostle, no bishop can be reputed in the Apostolic 
succession, and his testimony is of no value whatever. This 
being so, it clearly follows first, that the testimony of individual 
bishops in union with him who alone is an Apostle (real 
successor) is not infallible, because it is not the testimony of 
the full Aposto'ic power; secondly that the testimony of all 
the bishops in union with the Apostolic see is and must be 
infallible; thirdly that the testimony of him who is a true 
successor of an Apostle is by itself infallible. The first two 
propositions have always been explrcit/y taught by the Church, 
the latter only since the Vatican Council Thus the sudjectum 
mnfallibilitatis is both the Pope as successor of S. Peter by 
himself, and the Pope and bishops considered as one body, 
because the subject in the last analysig is the Apostolic office 
and power. | 

(3) In which matters are they assisted by the Holy Ghost? 
This question also now finds an easy and natural solution. The 
Apostolic office is directly instituted to teach the revealed 
truth and impart divine grace, to sanctify men by divine truth, 
grace and virtue. These are its two chief and main functions, 
There are other acts, disciplinary and directive, but these are 
subsidiary. And of the two main functions, the office of 
teaching is the more fundamental. Truth and faith are 


te 


——— oe ee oe at 


an 


OP te a eee ile 


Mins» 


*e sae 
> 


THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE. 265 


paramount. In matters of revealed truth, then, tae Church is 
and must be infallible. The divinely appointed witnesses 
must be assisted by God, when in the name of the Apostolic 
office they propose to men what has been revealed. Infallibility 
must belong to the main and primary functions of the 
Apostolate. Upon this point all Catholics are agreed, and this 
has ever been the Church’s teaching. ‘The Church is certainly 
infallible in her full and final declarations of revealed truth. It 
is equally certain that her infullibility does not extend to matters 
that have nothing whatever to do with revealed trath. So far 
infallibility is limited by the scope of the Apostolic office. But 
as it is a function of the Apostolate not only to teach and 
declare revealed truth against direct denial, but also to safe- 
guard it against even indirect attacks, no matter from what 
quartcr they may come, and as natural truth is often closely 
interlaced with supernatural, those who hold the Apostolic 
office, may often be obliged to pass doctrinal and final decistons 
upon matters closely connected with the deposit ; so closely 
connected that the deposit could not stand without them. 
Hence it is still a controverted point among theologians 
whether divine assistance is to be claimed for such doctrinal 
decisions, or whether the human ecclesiastical authority of the 
Church is a sufficient guarantee of their truth or falsehood, 
as the case may be. Meanwhile no Catholic denies that 
obedience is due to all such decisions of the Church. But 
then obedience, even internal, is not quite the same as absolute 
and irreformable assent. 

(4) Which acts of the teaching Church can claim divine 
assistance? ‘his question, too, is easily answered from what 
precedes. The divine assistance certainly belongs to those acts 
sn which the Church uses her Apostolic authority to teach and 
testify finally, definitely and explicitly what is to be believed as 
revealed truth. Whence it follows that she need not be infall- 
ible in any preliminary steps, or in any acts of her teaching 
office that are not meant to be final and definite. Mucn less is 


266 THE CHURCH INFALLIBLE, | ae 


she infallible in simple acts of government, policy or discipline. Be: 
Such are the broad principles on the nature and extent of the 


Church’s infallibility, as far as they come within the scope of : 
Apology. We must beware both of unduly extending and of — a 
unduly limiting it.79 


t 


«ft 


7 


79 See on this subject the pamphlet entitled: A Letter to W.J. Ward om the Theory 
Y lnfaliible Instruction, by H. I. D. Ryder. London: Longmans & Co., 1868. 


CHAPTER IX. 


Po ese ul ROH NE CER SSAR YiobOR 
SALVABION. 


1. Inthe Old Testament the Theocracy, established by God 
Himself, was the union of those whom God had chosen from 
out the mass of idolaters—the e/ect, Jahve concluded a cove- 
nant with His people to assure them of His special favour and 
gracious protection. ‘‘If therefore,” said He, “ you shall hear 
““my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my peculiar 
“possession above all people; for all the earth is mine.” (Exod. 
XIX. 5.) ‘The mercy of the Lord is from eternity and unto 
“eternity, upon them that fear Him: and His justice unto 
“children’s children to such as keep His covenant, and are 
‘mindful of His commandments to do them.” (Ps. ci. 17. 18.) 
God promises to keep His covenant with the Jews, and to be 
ever mindful of them. Even when they were in the land of 
wacir enemies He did not cast them off altogether, nor make 
void His covenant with them.! But them that break their 
covenant with God He will chastise. “When there shall be 
‘found among you, within any of thy gates . . . manor 
“woman that do evil in the sight of the Lord thy God, and 
“transgress His covenant . . . thou shalt bring forth the 
**man or woman who have committed that most wicked thing, 

“to the gates of thy city, and they shall be stoned.”? “When 


z Lev. xxvi. 42. Deut. iv. 313 vii. 9. 
2 Deut, xvii. 2-5; xxix. 21. Jos. vii. 1% 


268 THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 


“you shall have transgressed the covenant of the Lord your 
“God, which He hath made with you, and shall have served 
“strange gods and adored them: then shall the indignation of 
“the Lord rise up quickly and speedily against you, and you 
“ shall be taken away from this excellent land which He hath 
“ delivered to you.”? 

The promised land was the reward that God promised and 
gave to His people for keeping the covenant. According as the 
people observed or broke the covenant, God’s protection alter- 
nated with His wrath. So long as the Israelites remained loyal 
and true to their God, they were secure against all their foes 
around. But when they proved faithless to Jahive, they fell 
helplessly a prey to their foes, who worshipped idols and seduced 
them into idolatry,—foes who had no part in the God of Israel. 


For every Israelite was firmly persuaded that none but those 


who bore the mark of the covenant were true sons of Abraham, 
and had a share in the divine blessings. In this sense the Old 
Covenant decidedly claimed the distinction of being the only 
religion that scattered blessings in this life, so generally was 
temporal well-being regarded as the fruit of the fear of the Lord. 
He who will come to God must belong to the chosen people ; 
anyhow he must be in communion with God’s people and sane- 
tuary. This people alone is God’s peculiar possession, His 
favourite Son who has received from ‘His Father’s table the 
fulness of grace and b essing. 

2. The Old Testament, however, in addition to its particu- 
larism, which excluded all idolaters from God’s inheritance, and 
condemned all fellowship with the heathen, had likewise a 
universal tendency in another direction, namely in regard to 
life eternal. The nations will not be precluded from salvation 
for ever. -A time will come when they shall invoke Jahve’s 
true name and be saved. Only those, however, who call upon 
‘Him from Sion shall see salyation. ‘‘In Mount Sion shall be 


3 Jos. xxiii. 16, Judgesii. 20. III Kings xi.zx, Is. xxiv. 8 Jer. xi. 33 xxii. 8 9 § 
xxxiv. 18. Ezech. xvii. 19. Os. viii. 2. 


Oe 


4 
foe dl ar 


Ce ee eee Pe te ee a ed 


THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 269 


*satvation, and it shall be holy ; and the house of Jacob shall 
“possess those that possessed them. And the house of Jacob 
‘shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house 
of Esau stubble; and they shall be kindled in them, and shail 
“devour them; and there shall be no remains of the house of 
“Esau, for the Lord hath spoken it.” (Abdias 17. 18). The 
new Jerusalem shall open its gates to receive the strength of 
the Gentiles. ‘For the nation and the kingdom that will not 
“serve thee, shall perish ; and the Gentiles shall be wasted with 
“desolation.” (Isaias Lx. 11.12). ‘And all they that shall 
“be left of all na‘ions that come against Jerusalem, shall go up 
“from year to year, to adore the King, and Lord of hosts, and 
“to keep the feast of tabernacles.” (Zach. xrv. 16). A pros- 
pect of salvation is ever held out to the heathen, but it is made 
dependent on membership with Holy Sion, ‘on union with the 
sanctuary that God had set up in the midst of His people. 
And there is but one Mount Sion, one Jerusalem, and one 
sanctuary, with one Shepherd, Lord and King. Outside this 
one Messianic kingdom, to which all the Gentiles have access, 
there is no salvation for men. The way to the salvation of the 
Messianic kingdom lies through the sanctuary of the chosen 
people. In the time of the Messias, the nations draw near to 
the house of the God of Jacob, and are reckoned just with 
God’s people if they keep the Sabbath and the covenant. They 
are admitted to the temple and sacrifices, and are enrolled as 
citizens in Jerusalem. This explains why the Jews who, at first, 
_ were bitterly exclusive, subsequently made proselytes.4 

3. Eventually the Messianic kingdom grew up as the New 
Sion and the New Jerusalem, in a manner quite different from 
that which the mere letter of the prophets signified, and in 
a way contrary to Jewish expectations and Jewish hopes. 
Nevertheless the prophetic promises were fulfilled in their spirit 
and meaning. Only they that have a part in the New Israel 


4 Edershneim, 7he Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. 2 ed. London 1884; IL. 
4u2z. Selbst, p. 87. 


270 THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 


are enrolled as citizens in the New Jerusalem, belong to God’s 
people, and attain the Messianic salvation, eternal life. But 
with the carnal Jews it was a fixed principle that the Old 
Israel, the descendants of Israel according to the flesh, each 
and all, but none other would be saved.® 

4. The teaching of the New Testament is clear and precise 
on this point. Theoretically speaking there is no doubt among 
Christians that salvation is to be found in Christ and in the 
Christian Church alone. The declarations made by our Lord 
and the Apostles are so formal and definite that we need 
only mention a few. The narrow gate and the narrow road, 
mentioned at the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount, 
in conjunction with the warning against false prophets, point 
to Him who alone can give eternal life, whom we must confess 
before men, if we are to be confessed before the Father,—to 
Jesus, the Messias and Son of God, the Lawgiver of the 
Messianic kingdom. Imitation of Christ which, like belief in 
Him, is set down as a condition for obtaining eternal life, 
shows, too, that only those, who are united with Christ 
in His passion and death, will rise with Him to a new life. 
The same thought is also brought out in the parables spoken 
concerning the kingdom of heaven: the great supper, the 
vineyard, and others. None but those who hear the voice 
of the Redeemer sent by God, shall sit down with Abraham, 
Isaac and Jacob. Not descent from Abraham according to 
the flesh, nor high birth, nor honourable position, but poverty 
in spirit, meekness aud humility, after the example of Christ, 
lead to eternal life. “He that believeth and is baptized shall 
“be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned” 
(Mark xvi. 16), said the risen Saviour to His disciples, when 
He commissioned them to preach the Gospel. 

5. This twofold condition for obtaining eternal life is put 
forward repeatedly and with especial prominence in S, John’s 


5 See Luke xiii. 23. Matthew fii. 9; and Schanz, Comment. in Luc. p. 373- Comment. 
; in WMatth. p. 127. 


THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, ae iy 


Gospel. Belief in Jesus, Baptism, and the Eucharist are the 
fundamental conditions of eternal life. Belief in the word 
of Jesus, in Jesus Himself as the Saviour of man, as the Son of 
God, figures so conspicuously as the central point of all Christ’s 
teaching, that it marks a distinct advance on the Synoptists 
in this respect. ‘He that believeth in Him (the Son) is 
“not judged ; but he that doth not believe is already judged ; 
“because he believeth not in the name of the only bego‘ten 
“Son of God.” (John m1. 18). “He that believeth in the 
“Son hath life everlasting; but he that believeth not the 
“Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth in 
“him,” (11. 36). ‘This is the will of my Father who sent 
“me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in 
“Him, may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up at 
“the last day.”6 ‘Jesus is the door of the fold. If any 
“one enter by Him, he shall be saved.” (x. 7. 9). ‘He is 
“the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh to the 
“Father but by Him.” (xiv. 6. 7). “ He is the vine, in whom 
“they must abide to bear fruit.” (xiv. 5. 6). “He is the light 
“which enlighteneth every man.” ‘This is life everlasting: 
‘that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ 
“whom thou hast sent.” (xvir. 3). 

6. What, too, do the Apostles declare as to the Gospel 
being the only power to save? It would be an endless task to 
quote all the passages either in the Epistles, the Acts, or the 
Apocalypse. But as connected with the foregoing we may 
make a beginning with the conclusion of S. John’s Gospel: 
“These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the 
“Christ, the Son of God: and that believing you may have 
“life in His name.” (xx. 31.) According to the same Apostle 
there are but two armies, In the one the forces marshalled 
are truth, the love of God, and the observance of God’s 
commandments ; and these are ranged on the side of Christ and 
the Father. On the opposing side—that of Satan—the army 


6 John vi. 40. See also v. 243 vi. 473 viii. 513 x. 27, 283 xii. 26. 


272 THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 


is recruited from falsehood, hatred and darkness. The two are 
in irreconcilable antagonism, and man must choose between 
them once for all.?7. “There shall not enter it anything defiled, 
“or any one that worketh abomination, or a lie, but they who 
“are written in the book of life of the Lamb.” (Apoc. xxI. 27.) 
The same thought is ever recurring in S. Peter’s discourses. 
He puts the whole question in a nutshell when he says: “This 
“is the stone Which was rejected by you—the builders ; which 
‘is become the head of the corner. Nor is there salvation in 
“any other. For there is no other name, under heaven, given 
“to men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts Iv. r1, 12.) And, 
in like manner, Paul made answer to the keeper of the prison: 
‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved and thy 
“house.” (Acts XVI. 31.) 

7. §. Paul has treated speculatively the whole question of 
salvation in Christ from a broad historical standpoint. And in 
this he is unique. He passes in view the history and life of the 
Gentiles; he searches the Scriptures, and discovers that the 
belief and practice of the Jews were at variance with divine 
revelation; he contrasts the universal sinfulness reigning 
amongst Jews and Gentiles with the truth and grace bestowed 
in creation, with the law written on the heart, as well as with 
the positive supernatural law; and he finds that all have 
sweived from truth and rectitude. ‘There is none that doth 
“good; there is not so much as one.” (Rom. Ul, 12.) 
“Whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without 
‘the law; and whosoever have sinned in the law, shall be 
“judged by the law.” (Rom. u. 12.) There is no salvation 
except in Christ. ‘For ail have sinned, and do need the 
“slory of God. Being justified gratis by his grace, through the 
“redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 11. 23 24). 
The grace of God, by Jesus Christ, can alone deliver man from 
sin and misery. “If thou confess with thy mouth the Lord 
“Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up 


g I. John ii. 3-6; ii. 17; iil. 6-93 v. 3 


- 
a wire 


Ee 


THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 273 


“from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart, we 
“believe unto justice; but, with the mouth, confession is made 
“unto salvation.” (Rom. x. 9, 10). ‘ Having therefore, 
“brethren, a confidence in entering into the sanctuary by the 
“blood of Christ, a new and living way, which he hath dedicated 
“for us through the veil, that is to say, his flesh.”8 ‘ For there 
“is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man 
“Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a redemption for all, a testi- 
“mony in due times.” (I Tim. 11. 5.6). So great a dread 
had theApostles and disciples of the dangers of apostacy, that 
they would never exchange a word in conversation with any 
one who had fallen away from the truth, “A man that is an 
“heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid ; knowing 
“that he that is such an one, is subverted and sinneth, being 
“condemned by his own judgment.” (Titus m1. 10. 11.)® 

8. In his first Epistle 5. Peter discourses on Christian hops 
in order to comfort and encourage the faithful who were in 
danger, or actually suffering persecution. For having been 
redeemed by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, and being 
born again, not of corruptible seed, but by the living word of 
God, Christians may hope with confidence in the grace that is 
in the revelation and second coming of Christ And their hope 
shell not be blighted. For “the God and Father of our 
*“Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy hath 
“regenerated us unto a lively hope, through the resurrection of 
* Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible 
“and undefiled, and that fadeth not, reserved in heaven for 
“you who by the power of God are kept by faith unto salvation, 
‘ready to’be revealed in the last time.” (1 Peter 1. 3.5). As 
in time past eight souls were saved in Noe’s Ark by water, so 
baptism being alike in form now saveth and sanctifieth 
Christians, (I Peter 11. 20, 21.) 


8 Hebr. x. 19. See also vii. 25. ix. 153 xii. 24. Also Vatican Council, comsiit, de fide 
. cath. c. ili. can. 1. Scheeben, 1. 43. 
9 See Iren., ddv. Haer. ili. 3, 4 


274 THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 


9. The Apostle S. James knows of nothing but the engrafted 
word of God “ which is able to save your souls ” (James I. 21). 
“He that hath looked into the perfect law of liberty, and hath 
“continued therein, not becoming a forgetful hearer, but a doer 
“ of the work; this man shall be blessed in ‘his deed.” (1. 25). 

10. The antagonism also between the disciples, whom 
Christ has saved from the world, and the world and its ruler, so 
forcibly brought out in the Gospels and Epistles, proves the 
same thing. ‘The faithful, like the Jews in the Old Testament, 
have been separated from the heathen multitude and the sinful 
world, and snatched from temporal and eternal destruction, in 
order to obtain eternal life through Christ and in union with 
Him. The world hates the disciples of Jesus, because they 
are not of the world, because Christ has chosen them out of 
the world to make them His own. The Jews will put the 
disciples out of the synagogues; yea, the hour cometh, that 
whosoever killeth them, will think that he doth a service to 
God. (John xv. 19; xvi. 2). And all these things they will 
do because they have not known the Father who sent Jesus. 
If Jesus had not come and spoken to them, they would not 
have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin, (John 
xv. 22). The little flock, following the shepherd, is the new 
synagogue in which alone fs salvation. It is hated and perse- 
cuted by the world, because this world’s ruler hates the mightier 
One who has come to dispoil him of his armour; but Christ 
has promised that it shall last until Fle come again. The 
kingdom of Christ is not of this world. It came from heaven, 
and to heaven it leads. 

14. §. Paul usually addresses his letters to the “saints,” to 
those “sanctified” in Christ Jesus, thereby signifying that 
Christians have been set apart from the multitude, and dedica- 
ted to God. As God, in the Old Testament, was preeminently 
called Holy, because He was the one only God in opposition 
to idols, so everything not profane, that stood in any relation 
to God, was also holy. First and foremost Israel should be 


> ba 2 OA rea 


THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 275 


holy ;18 holy, also, should be the priests who ministered to God; 
and holy, too, the vestments, vessels, places and cities destined 
. for God’s service. This antithesis between things sacred and 
profane is founded on moral holiness. The saints of God 
must be free from sin, and be remarkable for piety and justice. 
Then will the “saints of the Most High” take possession of 
the kingdom of God. “Thou art a holy people to the Lord 
“tny God. The Lord thy God hath chosen thee, io be His 
“peculiar people, of all peoples that are upon the earth.” #2 

Both significations are applicable to the “ saints” mentioned 
by the Apostle. By grace they were calied from heathen dark- 
ness into Christian light, chosen from the impure heathen and 
stiffnecked Jews, and destined for life eternal. Christians, 
before receiving the name Christian, were called saints, as 
having been chosen and sanctified by Christ. Cl Coreiear 
Philemon 1. 3). Consequently “‘sanctificition” was closely 
bound up with justification: “For whom He foreknew, He also 
“predestinated to be made cenformable to the image of His 
“Son. . . . and whom He predestinated, them also He 
“called; and whom He called, them also He jusiied; and 
“whom He justified, them also He glorified.” (Rom. vil. 29. 
30). . . “The faithful are now washed, they are sanctified 
“and justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in 
“the Spirit of our God.” (I Cor. vi. 11). 

12. The comparison which the Apostle draws between 
baptism and the death and resurrection of Christ, is most 
significant. The symbolism is as clear as it is beautiful. By 
immersion in the water the Christian dies and is buried ; when 
he rises from the water he comes forth from the tomb and lives 
again. As water cleanses the body, so the blood of Christ 
cleanses the soul from the stain of sin; and thus we become 
new creatures, with our lost beauty restored; we awake toa 
new life, through the grace of the Risen Saviour. ‘ Know you 


10 Exod. xix. 6. Lev. xx. 26. Is. Ixii. 12. 


ar Deut. vii. 6; xiv. 5 xxvi, 18. 19. See also Exod. xxii. 3x. Lev. i. 443 xxix. 93 
xxi. 6. 8. - se 


276 THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 


“not all that we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized 
“in His death? For we are buried tegether with Him by 
“baptism unto death ; that as Christ is risen from the dead by 
“the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of 
“Jife. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of 
“His death, in like manner we shall be of His resurrection.” 
(Rom. vi. 3-5). ‘ But when the goodness and kindness of our 
“Saviour, God, appeared ; not by the works of justice, which 
“we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by 
“the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost, 
“whom He hath poured forth upon us abundantly, through 
“Tesus Christ our Saviour.” (Titus 11. 4-6). 

13. Christ, then, and His religion, according to the clear 
and explicit doctrine of Scripture, are the only means of salva- 
tion. But the form in which Christ and Christianity have come 
down to us in history, is the Church. Therefore the Church 
is the only means of salvation. If salvation is to be found 
nowhere but in Christianity, because it contains the absolute 
divine revelation which renders reconciliation with God through 
Jesus Christ possible, and dispenses sanctification by separating 
the elect from the mass, by sanctifying in baptism, and by 
giving grace to lead a holy life,—all this must be found in the 
institution that Christ destined to carry on His work in the 
world. For not the least part of the teaching of Jesus is 
taken up with setting forth the task that He imposed on His 
Church to dispensé salvation to men to the end of time. 
Thus the Church must be the only institution in which salvation 
is to be found, because, by the ordinance of the All Holy 
God, she has the stewardship of truth and the means of grace, 
and because the end which she strives to promote and for 
which she works under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is the 
sanctification and salvation of the faithful. 

4. The inference we have drawn is supported by the direct 


12 I Cor. xv. 50. Gal. v. 16.17. 19. Col. i. 21. 22. Ephes. iv. 22 
13. See Kuhn, /heod. Quar talschri/t, 1855, P+ Je 


sll Sop: Sal cee 


A 


THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 277 


testimony of the Apostles. Thus S. Paul, in the oft-quoted 
passage, says: “Christ also loved the Church and delivered 
“Himself up for it, that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by 
“the laver of water in the word of life, that He might present 
“it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, 
“nor any such thing, but that it should be holy and without 
“blemish.” (Ephes. v. 25-27). S. Peter likewise tells us that 
all inward working of grace and sanctification comes to the 
faithful in and with the Church, that is, in so far as they are 
formed into one body organically connected. “Unto whom 
“coming as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but 
“chosen and made honourable by God: Be ye also as living 
“stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer 
‘up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. . . . 
‘But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy 
“nation, a purchased people, that you may declare His virtue 
“who hath called you out of darkness into His admirable light. 
‘“Who in time past were not a people, but are now the people 
“of God: who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained 
mercy.” (I Peter 11. 4-10). 

15. The post-Apostolic age knew of no truth or grace or 
Christianity outside the Church. This being so, it was a self- 
evident truth with the men of that age that nowhere but in the 
Church was salvation to be found. Only in the unity, charity 
and fellowship of the Church is this sanctification and salvation 
to be obtained. They who sever themselves from her, have no 
part with her, and contract an alliance with the synagogue of 
Anti-christ. They who are cast forth from her, are handed over 
to Satan; they can no more be members of the body of Christ, 
or branches of the vine. S. Zymatius, following the precedent 
set by the Apostles, addresses his Epistles to the ‘holy 
Church.” To receive aright the Sacraments of baptism and 
the Eucharist, he expressly insists on the necessity of being in 
communion with the Church and the bishop. ‘‘He who is not 
“within the altar, loses the divine bread.” ‘ He who joins 


278 THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 


“ himself to a sectary, shall have no inheritance in the kingdom 
‘of God.” ‘Each one who is in unicn with God and Chnist, 
“is also in union with the bishop.” Heresy is a foreign plant, 
a deadly poison flavoured with wine. Heretics are beasts in 
human form, wolves, godless and unbelieving. S. Polycarp 
calls them the “ firstborn of Satan.” Clement of Rome warns 
the Corinthians against schism, and declares that submission 
is the only road to salvation. “For it is better to be found 
“in the flock of Christ with humility and good repute, than to 


“possess great influence and authority and to perish in 


* despair.” 14 


Justin and Clement of Alexandria, as we have seen, openly 
acknowledged that before the Christian era the Logos had 
influenced and prepared the heathen, and had thus in a 
measure provided them with a substitute for the truth of 
Christianity ;!5 nevertheless in opposition to the many heresies 
then stalking abroad, they boldly proclaim the Church as the 
exclusive harbour of salvation. Justin brands heretics as 
unrighteous and lawless men, whose fellowship Christians 
should shun. “To obtain salvation we must fly to God’s holy 
“churches, Heretical doctrines lead those who trust in them 
“to destruction,” remarks Theophilus. To the Gnostics, 
whether they appealed to special Scriptures or to a secret 
tradition, Zrenceus and Tertullian opposed the shield of the 
Catholic Church. They disputed the right of heretics to exist 
because truth and salvation are to be found only in the Church, 
and in her alone the Holy Spirit dwells. The Church judges 
all, and is herself judged of none. She judges even schismatics 
who have no love for God, who set their own interests above 
the unity of the Church, and for slight causes lacerate and, as 
far as in them lies, slay the glorious body of Christ. The most 
praiseworthy act they can to do is to destroy schism. But the 


Church likewise judges those who are outside the pale of truth, 


14 Ignat., Ad Ephes.c. 4.5. Philad. c. 3. Trail. c. 6. Clem., Rom. I Cor. 57. 2 
15 See Christ. Apol. vol. II. chap. vil. 


Lise ng. ica, Seopa 


THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, 279 


ie. the Church. True knowledge lies in the doctrines taught 
by the Apostles and in the ancient status of the Church 
throughout the world “For the gift of God (faith) is entrusted 
“to the Church in order that she may give life to the creature, 
“that she may quicken all her members, in whom there is 
“communion with Christ, because in her is deposited the 
“ Holy Ghost, the pledge of immortality, the strength of faith, 
“the ladder for ascending unto God.” 16 

Miracles, again, are unknown among heretics, whereas they 
are of constant occurrence in the Church; miracles on the 
sick and those possessed by devils ; miracles also of the spirit 
are seen in the conversion of peoples. Where the gifts of God 
are stored up, there also must truth be.!7 | 

16. It must not, however, be supposed that the sects were 
the cause of the doctrine itself: Zx¢ra ecclesiam nulla salus. 
They were merely the occasion for bringing it into greater 
prominence than it might otherwise have obtained. They 
made Catholics set greater store by the priceless gift of 
ecclesiastical unity and truth. ‘This doctrine,” says a 
Protestant writer, “* was developed in the hard struggle with a 
“tornado of sects,” some threatening to dissolve Christianity 
into “a peaceful philosophy, others claiming to set up a nobler 
“and more spiritual Christianity and a spotless Church by 
“pushing contempt of the world to extremes.” 18 This may be 
granted, provided we mean by development the unfolding of a 
principle already existent in the Catholic Church. If Christ 
and the Apostles preached and bequeathed to the Church the 
truth and grace that can alone save, heretical onslaughts must 
have strengthened the conviction that outside the Church there 
is no salvation, And the sects, by claiming this privilege for 
their own body as against the Church, thereby acknowledged 
that there can be but one Church in which salvation can be 


26 Just. Dial. c. 35. Theoph. Ad. Autol, ii, 142 Iren, iv. 33, 7, 8 
17 Iren. ive 3. 43 iii. 26, 5. 
28 Hase, p. 42 


280 THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 


found. The vast majority of the faithful were in no doubt that 
the Catholic Church was the one Church. ‘The Catholic 
“Church,” says Lactentius, “ has the true worship. She ts the 
“source of life, the home of faith, the temple of Gods 2h 
“that enters not into her, or de arts from her, is so far from 
“the hope of eternal life and s. lvation. And yet the several 
‘bodies of heretics consider themselves Christians, and their 
Church Catholic.” 

17. The Fathers eagerly appropriated S. Peter’s simile of 
the ark, and explained the ark as a type of the Church. Only 
those are saved’ who take shelter in the Church against the 
waves and surging floods of the world. S.. Cyprian, in 
particular, has developed this thought.20. More than any 
ancient Father he has drawn out in all its consequences the 
doctrine that salvation is to be found in Church alone. Nay 
he went so far that, in opposition to the great majority of 
the Church’s doctors and to Pope Stephen, he declared that 
baptism administered outside the Church was invalid, because 
the Church alone can disrense grace, and alone possesses the 
Holy Spirit} He made £xtra Ecclesiam nulla salus the 
Church’s watchword, and it has remained so ever since, 
although the view defended by the Pope ultimately prevailed. 
He who separates from the Church, Christ’s true bride, and 
joins himself to an adulteress, is cut adrift from the Church’s 
promises. He has no part in Christ’s rewards who deserts 
Christ's Church. He is a stranger, a profane person, an 
enemy. ‘Any one outside the Church will escape, if any out- 
“side Noe’s ark could escape.” ‘He «ho clings not to this 
“univy clings neither to the law of God, nor to faith in Father 
“and Son, nor to life and salvation.” “ He who has torn 
“}iimself asunder from the Church must be avoided and 


19 Jnstit. iv. 30. 

20 De Unit. 6. Epist. 69. 23 74, 11. Firmil., Inter Epp. Cypr. 75, 18. of. Tertull. 
De Baft. c. 8 Hieron, Adv. Luc f. . 22. hp. ad Dam. im See Kraus, 
Real-Encyclop. ii. soo 

ox EpiSt. 74, 43 76 3 See also Lp. 753 


THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 281 


“shunned. Such a one is subverted, and sinneth, being 
‘condemned by his own judgment (Titus m1. rr). Does he 
“think that he can be with Christ, when he lays his hands on 
_“Christ’s priests, and separates from his clergy and people ? 
“He bears arms against the Church, and fights against God’s 
“ordinance. He is an enemy of the altar, a rebel against the 
“sacrifice of Christ, a renegade to the faith, guilty of perjury 
“to religion, a disobedient slave. And does he dare, despised 
“by the bishops and abandoned by the priests of God, to set 
“up another altar, to pray with unhallowed words, and to 
“profane the true sacrifice of the Lord with false sacrifices ” ? 22 
“He who has not the Church for his mother, neither has he 
“God for his father,” 

18. Nor does S. Cyprian hesitate to deny that heretics can 
merit the palm of martyrdom. “Heretics, even if they v-cve 
“slain in confessing the name of Christ, would not wash out 
“the stain of heresy with their blood. No one can be a 
“martyr, who is notin the Church.” And S. Aueustine sup- 
ports his view: “ Being outside the Church, separated from 
“the frame of unity and the bonds of love, you will be punished 
“with everlasting tortures, even if you willingly gave yourself 
‘up to be burnt alive for the name of Christ.”2 And he 
appeals to the Apostle who sets charity above martyrdom 
(I Cor. x1. 13). Christian unity and the charity of the Holy 
Spirit can be found only in the Catholic Church. None but 
they who have Christ for their head attain eternal life and sal- 
vation. And no one can have Christ for his head, who is not 
in His body, which is the Church. This Church is the 
Catholic Church, which was then the Roman State Church. 
Outside this Church, in which alone is salvation, even martyr- 
dom cannot lead to Christ.*4 

19. Though S. Augustine combated S$. Cyprian’s opinion, 
and maintained that baptism administered by heretics was valid 


22 De Unit. c. 6 et 17. 
23 Ef. 173, 6. De Bapt. 3, 1634, 24. Sermo ad Caes. Eccles. n. 6. 
24 Aug. De Umit.c. 1g. See also Orig., Homil LV. in Jos. Hieron., Epist. 14, 


- 


282 THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 


because it, too, is Christ’s baptism, still he is very far from put- 
ting it, in practice and in effect, on an equal footing with the 
Church’s baptism. Rather he is of the same opinion as S. 
Irenzeus, that the Holy Ghost is communicated only in that 
Church in which He dwells; only where charity is, are sins for- 
given.25 There is no charity in schism, or schismatics would 
not be blinded by brotherly hatred. Baptism, he says, is 
indeed valid, but sin is not forgiven until man has become 
reconciled to unity, and is free from the sacrilege of schism. Or, 
if sin is forgiven in the moment of baptism, it returns with schism. 
For nowhere but in the Catholic Church is the Holy Spirit 
received through the imposition of hands. He is charity, which 
they are not who are cut off from communion with the Church, 
and love not its unity. The Apostles received the Holy Ghost 
unto the remission of sins. (John xx. 22, 23). Now, since this 
was said to them, as representing the Church, it is the peace of 
the Church that remits sins, and estrangement from the Church 
that retains them. Hence all heretics and schismatics are 
pseudo-christians, because they possess only the outward sign of 
Christianity, without its unity and charity.*6 Those not in 
communion with the Catholic Church will not gain life 
eternal. “If by thine impatience thou shouldst break 
through the bosom of the Church, she will send thee forth in 
pain, but to thy misfortune rather than her own.”*7 “Truth 
dwells in the body of the Church. Anyone separated from this 
necessarily speaks falsehood. ‘Only the Church Catholic is 
“the body of Christ, Who is its head. Outside this body the 
“Holy Spirit quickens none, because as the Apostle says 
“(Rom. v. 8) the charity of God is poured forth into our hearts 
“by the Holy Spirit that is given us. If any one, therefore, 
“ desires to possess the Holy Spirit, let him beware of being 


as De Bafptismo, passim. Cf. Hier., Adv. Lucif. n. 9. Leo M., Ep. 152, 73 166, 2. 
167, 18. 

26 De Bapt. 3,18, 19. De fide et Syd. c. 10. Hieron., Je Ep. Ad Tit. 3, to. Opta- 
tus. De Schism. Donat. 1. 9: 

27. /n Ps. 57-0. & 


THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, 283 


“outside the Church.” And if schismatics have true baptism 
it comes from the common faith they have purloined from the 
Church. Their Church does not thrive on what separated 
them from, but}on what joined them to, the Church, It is 
separated from the bond of charity and peace, but united in the 
one baptism, “But they think within themselves that they 
show very great subtlety in asking whether the baptism of 
“Christ in the party of Donatus makes men sons or not 3 so 
“that, if we aliow that it does make them sons, they may 
“assert that theirs is the Church, the mother which could give 
“birth to the sons in the baptism of Christ ; and since the 
“Church must be one, they may allege that ours is no Church. 
“But if we say that it does not make them sons, why then, say 
“they, do you not cause those who pass from us to you to be 
‘born again in baptism, after they have been baptised with us, 
“if they are not thereby born as yet p—Just as though their 
“party gained the power of generation in virtue of what consti- 
“tutes its division, and not from what causes its union with 
“the Church. For it is severed from the bond of peace and 
“charity, but it is joined in one baptism. And so there is one 
Church which alone is called catholic; and whenever it ha3 
“anything of its own in these communions of different bodies 
“which are separate from itself, it is most certainly in virtue of 
“this which is its own in each of them that it, not they, has the 
“power of generation. For neither is it their separation that 
“generates, but what they have retained of the essence of the 
*¢ Church.””9 

20. Augustine, indeed, knows full well that there are Jews and 
heathens who are members of the Church, without belonging 
to the visible Church; but they are such only in God’s fore- 
knowledge. From this invisible Church proceeds the Church 


visible, which is the only haven of salvation.3® Unless they 
30 De Bapt. 5, 38. 


28 £4. 185, rz. 50. 
29 De Bapt.i. 10, 14. (Clarke’s Tr.) 


284 THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, 


belong to the visible Church they cannot attain to eternal 
life. ‘Hold this unhesitatingly and without doubting,” says 
Fuleentius of Ruspe, “that not merely the heathen, but Jews 
“also, and heretics and schismatics, who live out of the 
“Catholic Church, shall go into everlasting fire.”5l The 
Africans gradually severed all connection with heretics, whom 
they regarded as outside the pale of Christianity, and without 
the circle of its graces. 

21. The Greck Fathers, too, were severe in judging heretics, 
although they had rot formed such a complete and consistent 
idea of the Catholic Church as prevailed in the West. The 
great Greek Fathers of the fourth century, S.S. Chrysostom, 
Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and Gregory of Nyssa, with one con- 
certed voice, condemn heretics for rejecting the Church's 
doctrine and tearing her unity into shreds. They thought 
that, to avoid schism, men should be ready to make the 
heaviest personal sacrifices. Hence S. Athanasius was filled 
with zeal against the Meletians, and Gregory Nazianzen refers to 
the example of S. Basil who, afraid lest the monks devoted to 
him should rise up against the legitimate bishop, because of his 
negligence, and create a schisin, left the city.’ The General 
Councils, summoned in the East to condemn heresies, aie the 
strongest proof that the East believed that the one way to 


salvation is in the one Mother Church, 


22. It is quite in conformity with the position taken up- 


by the African Fathers that theirs were the first ecclesiastical 
utterances upon the aphorism: LZxtra ecclesiam nulla salus. 
The Donatists by insisting that only saints could be members 
of the Church, or rightly administer the Sacraments, called 
in question the entire constitution of the Catholic Church, 
Against them the Africans were bound to declare explicitly, 
in what relation the Church stood to man’s salvation. But the 
Canon generally ascribed to an African Synod in 398 A.D, 
gx De Fide ad Petr. & a9, Hagemann, Rdmische Kirche, Pe» Qe 


g2 Oval. 43. 29: 
33 Hase, p. 43. See Tournely, p. 52 


— Ree en ee 


Te ee 


‘ Acro Me ae) 


THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, 285 


cannot be adduced in proof, as this Synod of Carthage is 
unknown to history, and has long since been proved fictitious.*4 
Nor do the Canons (104) ascribed to it harmonise with that age. 
They are a private collection of Canons of different African 
and Eastern Synods. Hence it is impossible to say where 
the Canon originated which directed that the following question 
should be put to ordinandi: Can any one be saved outside 
“the Catholic Church?” However, these Canons crept eventually 
into the ancient Spanish, pseudo-Isidorian collection, and this 
one was thus incorporated in the Canon Law.% 

23. It is the same with the Athanasian Creed. As all the 
world knows, it did not originate with S. Athanasius, but first 
saw the light in the West or in Africa about the fifth or sixth 
century. In the matter of Zx¢ra Lcclesiam etc., it is stamped 
with the seal of the African Church. By being embodied in 
the liturgy, it gradually acquired the authority of a symbol, 
“He who wishes to be saved, must first of all hold fast to the 
“Catholic faith. Unless he keep this entire and inviolate, he 
“will surely perish for ever.” This creed, in Hase’s opinion, 
became “the symbol of the Roman Church, which, after sepa- 
“rating from the Eastern Church, carried with it the privilege 
“of salvation.” But the symbol existed long before the Schism, 
and corresponded with the ancient faith of the Roman Church, 
which needed, therefore, merely to retain the privilege. We 
shall see presently how the Roman Church, whose Apostolic 
succession was more certain than that of all other churches, 
possessed from the beginning the privilege of the true faith 
which the Apostle in his Epistle to the Romans had already 
spoken of in terms of highest praise. If she took it with her, 
then, at all events, till the schism, she was in agreement with 
the Eastern Church. The Eastern Schismatical Church herself 
goes now even further, inasmuch as she practically classes the 
heterodox with the heathen. 


34 Hefele, Z.c, ii. p. 68. 
35 Decret. I. Dist. 23 co B 


286 THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 


24. When, therefore, Boniface VIII. says: “We declare it 
“to be necessary to salvation that every human creature snould 
“be subject to the Roman Pontiff,”*’ he is merely giving forrnal 
expression to the doctrine already put forward by Cyprian, 
Augustine, Jerome, and Leo. It follows from the Scriptural 
doctrine on the institution and constitution of the Church, and 
is, as we shall show later, the logical consequence from Matth. 
xv1, 18 seq. Tertullian, on the strength of Scripture and 
Tradition, gave utterance to the principle that there is nothing 
Christian but what is Catholic.°® Augustine, as we have seen, 
took it up with warmth and vigour. But their doctrine was not 
new. It is to be found in nearly set terms in S. Ignatius. ‘The 
Greek Fathers, as seen in Irenzeus, were of the same opiniou. 
Augustine’s doctrine became the standard for the schools of 
the Middle Ages. ‘True, his doctrine on predestination was 
set aside by Pope Celestine as not being necessary to Catholic 
doctrine. But from this it does not follow that his doctrine on 
salvation through the Church alone is also to be set aside. For 
Augustine himself would protest against such an inference. He 
considered that alone as Catholic doctrine which the Church 
generally believed and taught. For the rest his doctrine of 
predestination is quite independent of the principle that out of 
the Church there is no salvation ; nor did Augustine ever hold, 
as did the Reformers, that none but saints and the predestined 
are members of the Church. The doctrine, therefore, of which 
we speak is coeval and coextensive with the Catholic Church. 

25. For this reason a general ecclesiastical decision was 
subsequently unnecessary. Neither the Scholastics nor modern 
theologians had any need to set up a “ peculiar dogma of 
salvation,” even supposing it had been in their power to do so. 
But there can be no doubt as to the teaching of both the one 
and the other on this point. ‘The Scholastics thought it a 
self-evident truth that the true docirine of Jesus and the 


38 Extrav. comm. |. i. tit, 8. c. 1 
39 Hase, p. 73. See Zockler, Il. 74% 


" ah 
be ae 


ogni ied tre:"t,. 


eee ae eee rae Te 


6 


» Aa # 


THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, 287 


Apostles and the right means of grace existed nowhere but in 
the Church, and that in it alone salvation was to be found. 
The first, however, to handle the question of the Church 
systematically was Torquemada. Among the Excellences of 
the Catholic Church he counts its exclusiveness, according to 
the axiom: Lxtra Eeclesiam nulla salus. This exclusiveness, 
he says, follows from a two-fold necessity ;4 the necessity of 
faith and of the sacraments for eternal life. Both are found only 
in the Catholic Church 

For the rest, there are not wanting ecclesiastical documents 
in which the doctrine is embodied. The fourth Council of the 
Lateran in its profession of faith teaches as follows (c, 1): 
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, and 
“outside it no one at all is saved.” The Waldenses, after their 
conversion, were required to profess faith in one Church ; not 
an heretical Church, but in the Holy, Roman, Catholic and 
Apostolic Church, out of which no one is saved. In like 
manner Eugenius IV., speaking in the name of the Roman 
Church, teaches that none outside the Catholic Church, 
whether heathens, Jews, heretics, or schismatics, shall have a 
share in everlasting life, but that they shall go into eternal fire 
unless converted before death. And the Council of Trent 
presupposes this universal belief. The decree on original sin 
begins with these words: ‘That our Catholic faith, zrthout 
“which it is impossible to please God, may be purified from 
“errors, and preserved intact and inviolate... . the Synod 
“decrees, etc.” This evidently implies the same doctrine of 
the one saving Church as is contained in the Athanasian 
Symbol. The Catholic Church, it Says again, instructed by 
Jesus Christ, our Lord, and His Apostles, and by the Holy 
Spirit who leads her into all truth, teaches that she possesses 
and will hold to the true doctrine of the Eucharist, and that 
therefore she forbids all Christians to think otherwise. ‘The 
Roman Church is cailed by the Synod the Mother and 


- 40 Summa de Eccles. i, 28. Schwane, iii. 500. 


288 THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, 


Mistress of others.41 Pius IV. inserted the words in the 
profession of faith: “I acknowledge the Holy Catholic and 
“ Apostolic Roman Church as the Mother and Mistress of all 
‘ Churches.” And it concludes with the words: ‘This true 
“ Catholic faith, without which no one can be saved, I promise 
“to hold intact and entire until my last breath.” 

26. Of modern theologians, I shall name but two. Tournely 


) 


considers that the phrase “‘ Zxtra ecclesiam etc.” is one of 
those truths which are both incomprehensible and hard, because 
it lays a ban on all heretics and schismatics. “ But it is not on 
“that account less true; for Tradition, from first to last, teaches 
“that there is no remission of sins, no charity, no salvation 
“ outside the Church.” Perrone lays down the following thesis: 
“For those who culpably depart this life in heresy, schism, 
* or unbelief, there can be no salvation ; in other words, £xira 
“ ecclesiam nulla salus.” And he begins to demonstrate it with 
the words: “This thesis, which makes all sectaries and un- 
“believers gnash their teeth, is clear not only from Scripture 
“and the constant sense of the Catholic Church, but also 
“from reason. In fact so clear is it that he who fails to 
“perceive its truth must be blind.”# 

Pius IX., in his first Encyclical, condemned Indifferentism, 
and repeated the proposition: ‘Out of the Church there is no 
“ salvation.” And in another Encyclical he thus speaks: “For 
“we must hold it to be of faith that no one outside the Apos- 
“‘tolic Roman Church can be saved. For she is the one ark 
“of salvation, He who enters her not, will perish in the 
flood.” * 


41 Sessio v. Decret. de pecc. orig. Sess. xiii. Decret.de SS. Euch. Sacram. Sesséo xiv. 
de Extrem. Unct. c.3. Sess. xxv. de Delect. cib. 

42 Tournely, p. 52. Perrone, i. 249, 

* The proposition, as the author has clearly sho+vn, is old and Catholic, and is, in fact, 
only the logical conclusion of the doctrine of one visible Church of Christ on 
earth. As a matter of principle, therefore, Non-Catholics ought not to object to 
the conclusion, but to the premisses, which assert that Christ instituted and left 
in His place one only Church. ‘The anger and fury with which the conclusion is 
assailed seems to be due to the fact that superficial minds consider it as synonymous 
with, or, at least, as necessarily implying the proposition that ‘‘all heretics and 
schismatics of any and every kind, will be damned.” This, of course, is a mon- 


THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 289 


27. The Reformers adopted the very same principle. When 
they cut themselves off from the universal and Apostolic 
Church, they not only took with them the groundwork of their 
faith, that is Holy Scripture, but they also claimed to be a 
rival, infallible, and only true Church. Thus the Confessio 
condemns all heretics: Manichzeans, Valentinians, Arians, 
Eunomians, Mohammedans, and such like; and also the 
followers of Paul of Samosata, old and new Pelagians, and 
others who figure in the Apology as Scholastics; the Ana- 
baptists, Donatists, Novatians and others. What else can this 
mean, but that there is no salvation except through Christ, and 
through the one Church? The same view is urged against 
that section of Protestants which went under the name of 
“Reformed.” “Tf,” says the Apology, “our adversaries arro- 
“sate to themselves the name Church, we know full well that 
“the Church is theirs who teach Christ’s Gospel, and that the 
“Church is not with them who defend wicked doctrines in the 
“teeth of the Gospel.” The formula concordiae recognizes 


strous proposition, and entirely repugnant to Catholic principles and instinct. 
Such a conclusion could only be drawn, if it were stated that no one can or does 

belong in any way whatscever to the Catholic Church, unless he be an actua 

visible member. There is no such proposition in the whole range of Catholic 
Theology. What the Catholic proposition in question does imply is that whoever 
is saved, will be saved because, and in so far as, he is a member of the one Catholic 
Church on earth. To put the matter in what seems to us an easier form : Grant- 
ing, then, for argument’s sake, that there is but one visible Church, it clearly 
follows that it is the moral duty of every man to belong to it. His own salvation 
as well as the will of God, who founded the Church, impose on him this moral 
obligation which, like every other moral duty, supposes knowledge and free will. 
Now, a man is accountable unly in so far as he knows the duty, and is free to fulfil 
it. But a man may, without any fault of his, be ignorant of it, or, what is still 
more common, may be mistaken about it, thinking that he is actually fulfilling it 
when in reality he is not. To blame or punish such a one, would evidently be 
contrary to all moral principles. The man who can plead invincible ignorance er 
inculpable error, is reputed as good as having fulfilled the duty. But the duty 
remains the same in all cases. Accordingly there may be heretics and schismatics, 
who are born in heresy and who believe 4on4 fide that they are in »he one Church 
of Christ, and must consequently be reputed as satisfying as far as they are able 
the moral duty of belonging to the Catholic Church. But the duty of belonging 
to that Church remains ever the same The Catholic principle, therefore, requires 
no modification whatsoever. It is simply and absolutely true. Extra Ecclesiam 
nulla sa/us. It is simply the self-assertion of the Church as the sole representa- 
tive of Christ and His work on earth. The principle is directed against those who 
willingly and knowingly fall away from her, or justify their separation from her. 
—T>. 


44 Confess. 1.1. 3.45 2.2. Afol.c.3.a.6. Formul. Conc., Proem. II. 


29° THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, 


the ancient symbols “ that express the unanimous consent of 
“the Christian and Catholic faith, and that contain the con- 
“fession of orthodox Christians and of the true Church, to 
“wit, the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds.” It like-_ 
wise anathematizes all heretics, and all propositions at variance 
with the faith, that have ever been broached in the Church. In © 
connection with the Smalcaldic articles it is said: ‘*We in 
* nowise concede that bishops are the Church, because they 
“are not; nor do we hearken to their voice as if they issued 
“commands or prohibitions in the Church’s name. God be 
* thanked, any child seven years old now knows what the true 
“Church is; namely the saints, the faithful, and the sheep 
‘who hear the Shepherd’s voice.” 

Luther, in his greater Catechism, says: ‘‘ Outside this Chris- 
“‘tianity, and where this Gospel has no place, there can be 
‘neither forgiveness of sins nor sanctification. Hence all are 
“far removed from this Church who contend that they seek, 
“and purchase, and merit sanctification by their own works, 
‘‘and not through the grace of the Gospel and the remission” 
“of sins.” ‘ All who are outside the Christian pale, be they 
“heathen, Turk, Jew, false Christian or hypocrite, even if they 
“believe in the one true God and invoke Him, but know not 
“how He is disposed towards them, cannot promise themselves 
‘“*God’s grace and favour. ‘Therefore they abide in His eternal 
“wrath, and in everlasting damnation.”* Of course, he had 
his doubts and often spoke diffidently as to the truth of this 
doctrine, and the salvation of the faithful outside the true 
Church. But despite his teaching as to the invisible Church, 
into which he was reluctantly driven, Luther could not shake 
off the idea of the necessity of a visible Church. But he made 
the community the Church. According to Luther no one 

attains to faith, except by hearing God’s word in the Church. 
And God has handed over this key of the kingdom of heaven 
to the community of the faithful. 


44 ii. 47. 56. See Melanchthon. De gece. orig. Calv. /nstit. iii. 14, 4 


THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. . 2g9I 


Hence Protestant dogma is cognizant of two Churches 
besides the ecclesia universalts ; namely, an ecclesia vera se. 
era and an ecclesia falsa sc. impura, “the former essentiaily 
“one with the Evangelical (Lutheran) Church, the latter with 
“the Papal and Roman Church.” From this it is concluded“ 
that the evangelical notion of the Church is part and parcel 
of the principle of the Reformers, and that, in addition to 
the subjective assurance of salvation, the consciousness of 
belonging to the community of the faithful, that is the Church, 
is necessary. The clearest conviction of justification by fait 
in Christ is not suSicient for the Reformed faith, unless it 
also includes the idea of the community of the faithful, which 
is necessarily connected therewith, so as to form a counterpart 
to the Romish Sacrament of Penance. The subjective con- 
sciousness of justification by faith and the objective idea of 
the Church must be mutually connected ; for the Church “is 
“above all things and in every respect the community of the 
“faithful established by God.” 

The Calvinists were still more clamorous in their pretensions 
to be the one religion, out of which there is no salvation, 
They were thoroughly convinced that the pope was Anti-christ, 
the man of sin, and the child of destruction, and that the 
Catholic Church was the Synagogue of Satan. “That ali in 
“communion with him (the pope) are lost, is an article of faith 
“wherever genuine Calvinism is rampant. It stands in the 
“Westminster Confession.”*7 Nor were the Calvinists less 
tolerant towards the Lutherans. As they still breathe the old 
undying hatred towards Rome, so they endeavour, where they 
can, ‘to render suspect as liars, as denying the true faith, and 
“following a false erring theology, all who will not be set on 
“fire with fanatical zeal for Calvinism.” The Lutherans, on 
their part, were not slow to set up hatred against the doctrine of 


45 Zokler, ii. 747. 
46 Ritchl, Recht/ertigung, i. 154. See Jaussea, &, 176, 
47. Dollinger, Kirche, p. 2977, 286. 


292 THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 


Zwingli and Calvin, saying that through its instrumentality the 
devil was seeking to introduce heathenism, Talmudism and 
Mohammedanism into the Church. 

The Reformers made civil princes the arbiters as to what 
should be the religion of their country and their subjects. “It 
“is right and just that magistrates should establish the pure 
“ Gospel and the new Church, extirpate popery, and allow no 
“foreign doctrine to set foot on the soil.” They applied the 
aphorism: Cujus regio, illus religio, It was the duty of kings 
and princes to decide the religion of their subjects, and to 
watch over its purity. The Lutheran princes ascribed to 
themselves this right in so many words in the preamble to the 
formula concordiae. The office, hitherto held by popes and 
bishops of teaching all men what is necessary for salvation, not 
according to their own good pleasure, but in accordance with 
traditional belief, was now discharged by civil princes, too often, 
alas! by whim and caprice.48 ‘They decided which was the one 
Church of salvation, and they required ministers of religion 
and teachers of theology to take an oath of allegiance to the 
religicn of the country! 

28. Later Protestants, have, indeed, considerably toned 
down these claims and principles. Some of the more thought- 
ful Protestants, in opposition to their own confession and belief, 
came to different conclusions, as to their relations to the 
ancient Church. As time went on and a period of calm reflec- 
tion set in, their view gained ground. Even Luther could not 
disguise from himself that it was a bold undertaking “to teach 
“or believe anything in opposition to the Fathers.” “Item, 
“when one sees that men so much more excellent, intelligent, 
‘‘and learned, and withal so much holier, as Ambrose, Jerome, 
‘and Augustine, nay the best and greatest part of the world 
“have so believed and taught.” So, for instance, Kepler held 
that Iuther and Melancthon were not to be considered as 
founders of a new religion, but as party-chiefs, against whose 


43 Dillinger, p.52. Rohm, Con/essionelle Gegensatne 1837, ili. 7. Janssen, ili. 50» 


THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 293 


doctrine an appeal might be lodged to the universal doctrine of 
the Fathers. The Church of Christ, he thought, was “one and 
“the same at all times. Rome, Wittenberg, Geneva are but 
parts of the same ‘‘ Catholic” Church. He will have nothing 
to do with Luther so long as he completely excludes Rome 
from the Church and is unable to distinguish ‘ between the 
“temple of God, and Him that dwells therein.”49 

29. Non-Catholic Theologians, both of the rationalistic and 
positive schools, now show a juster appreciation of the Catholic 
Church, although the old nicknames, flouts and gibes are far 
from having died out. In the d fferent Churches Hase discerns 
partial Churches, each containing a portion of truth but none 
coming up to the ideal Church. Catholicism, according to 
Zockler, views the Church chiefly as the institute of salvation 
founded on the means of grace, while Protestantism mainly 
looks upon her as the communion of saints. ‘ Catholicism 
“and Protestantism are the two chief views and tencencies of 
**Christianity, both in themselves relatively justified. Through- 
“out the whole course of Church history they overlap and 
“interpenetrate one another, appearing on the scene either 
“with truth and moderation, or outbidding one another in 
. “falsehood and excess. After Protestantism, which had been 
‘smothered during the Middle Ages, had burst forth in the 
sixteenth century, and had wrested its autonomy from an exclu- 
“sive and conservative Catholicism, they both gradually lost 
“their mutual influence upon one another, and oscillated 
“between extreme objectivity on the one side, and a subject- 
“ivity hardly less extreme, on the other.”°? This is tantamount 
to saying that the true Church is, properly speaking, nowhere, 
since an invisible Church is a mere phantom. 

30. Now, the Catholic Church, while maintaining her claim 
to be the one saving Church, admits a distinction between the 


49 Schuster, Johann Kepler und die grossen Kirchl. Strett/ragen seiner Zett 
1888, p. 156. 


sO Zickler, ii. 399 


294 THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, 


objective doctrine and its subjective application, and recognizes 
an internal connection and necessary relation between the — 
visible and invisible Church. All in the Catholic Church will 
not be infallibly saved, nor will all outside it be irretrievably lost. 
To allow so much is neither to sanction “the ideal Church 
“of Protestants,” nor “to indulge in Jesuitical sophistry.” 
But the Church is thus following in the wake of the Fathers, 
who also drew a distinction between culpable and inculpable 
heresy, between voluntary and malicious, and involuntary and 
well-intentioned schisms. Their judgments often sound harsh, 
but it should be remembered that, as a rule, they had to deal 
with heretics and schismatics who had formeriy belonged to 
the Catholic Church, But when this was not the case, and 
they were dealing with men born in heresy, or who were so 
from custom or surroundings, they were much more lenient 
in their judgments. 

Only those, says S. Augustine, are heretics, who in the 
Church of Christ, think perversely, and obstinately refuse to 
correct their pernicious teachings. ‘ But though the doctrine 
“which men hold, be false and perverse, if they do not 
“maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they 
“have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, 
‘but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided 
‘and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking 
“the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have 
“found it, such men are not to be counted heretics.”5? Hence 
he views the baptism of material heretics and formal heretics in 
a different light. If the recipient be a heretic without any fault 
of his own, or is baptized by a heretic in a case of necessity, 
he receives forgiveness of sins and the Holy Ghost. Heretics 
and schismatics have in common with the Church much that 
can profit unto salvation those who without fault stand outside 
her communion; whereas with formal heretics and schismatics 
5st Hase, p. 54 


s2 Lfpist. 43, Io 53 
53 De Saft. i. 3; iv. 29. 


THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 295 


these things, baptism included, serve for their greater con- 
demnation. For they are ‘as limbs severed from the body, 
which, while retaining the outward form, have lost life, and 
‘are soulless.54 

31. S. Thomas adopts S. Augustine’s words,®® and points 
out that they are embodied in the decree of the Canon Law.*6 
As a reason he assigns the absence of hostile intention towards . 
the Church’s authority, Still, as he proceeds, S. Thomas shows 
that he is taking the proposition in a narrower sense than S. 
Augustine, inasmuch as he is speaking of material heresy only 
in regard to matters that the Church has not yet defined. 
“But after a decision has been pronounced by the authority 
“fof the universal_Church, he who obstinately held out would 
“be considered a heretic. This authority resides chiefly in 
the Pope.” Moreover, in this and in what follows, S. Thomas 
is speaking of heretics, still within the Church, who rebel 
against her authority. After such have been twice admonished, 
judgment should be passed. And ‘Tournely, commenting on 
the same passage in Augustine, says: The saint considers 
as members of the Church those who, if not really in external 
communion with her, nevertheless sincerely desire to be. These, 
if they place no obstacle in the way, share in the Church’s 
inward spirit. And other theologians allow that, amid the vast 
number of heretics, many are only in material error.*? 

32. Modern theologians are unanimous in excluding from 
salvation none but those obstinately in error ; i.e. such as resist 
the H._ ly Spirit against their better conviction, or by deliberately 
shutting their eyes to the truth. But obstinacy does not consist 
in an externally obtrusive “impetuosity in defending error.” 
For, as is well said in the Roman Catechism: 58 ‘A rman is not 
‘to be accounted a heretic who has once staggered in his faith, 
§4 Serio 268, 2. 

55 li. ii. g. Xi. a. 2. ad 3met contra. Cf. Leo M., Zé. 102, a 
56 Dist. 24. q. 3. c. Dixit Apost. 


57. Tourneley, p. 58. Reiffenstuel, De Virt. Theol. Tract. iv. q, 2. N. 196 
EBi. 10, 11... Hase, p. 54. 


296 THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 


“but he who setting aside the Church’s authority defends 
“ungodly opinions with an obstinate sense.” So that an 
“obstinate sense,” not outward impetuosity, is the turning 
point. An opponent is easily inclined to assume bad faith or 
obstinacy in his adversary because he judges faith from his own 
standpoint ; but no man is a judge in this matter which belongs 
to the domain of conscience and to God alone. The greater 
the duration of the schism, and the force of custom in matters 
of religion, the more we should be on our guard against being 
quick to assume evil intentions. 

In the Encyclical in which he condemned indifferentism, 
and pointed to the Roman Church as the one ark of salvation, 
Pius IX. warned men not to indulge in idle speculations as to 
the fate of those who do not belong to the Catholic Church ; 
for they should not pry into God’s secret counsels and 
judgments. Anyhow, he says, it may be taken as certain that 
they who are in invincible ignorance, are not guilty in God’s 
sight because they know not the true religion. And who would 
dare to set limits to such ignorance? ®¥ The Syllabus repeats 
only such propositions as relate to “Indifferentism.”° Even 
Protestants, unless they wish to constitute reason sole arbiter 
in matters of faith, will hardly quarrel with the theses levelled 
at Rationalism ‘At least,” so runs the condemned proposition, 
“we may hope well. for the eternal salvation of all who do not 
“live in the true Church of Christ.” This is taken from the 
above-mentioned Encyclical, and should be explained according 
to its context. There is nothing captious or insidious about it ; 
the less so because absolute certainty is unobtainable, without 
a special revelation, even as to the salvation of those who 
belong to the Church. Hence all are bidden to work out their 
salvation with fear and trembling. 

This mild condemnation of material heresy is described by 
Hase as “an un-Catholic double-tongued contession.” “ ‘Taken 


59 Lxcycl. Pii ix. 9 Dec. 1854. 
60 Syliab. 8 Dec. 1864. Prop. 15-18 


THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 297 


“in its plain unvarnished sense, it would almost destroy the 
“idea of heresy, at all events its application to the Protestant 
* Church. For it was precisely from conscientious anxiety as 
“to their salvation that our fathers withdrew from the Papal 
“Church ; and that we still protest against it, believing it to be 
‘4 distorted Christianity.”® The argument might fairly be 
retorted against the man who believes in branch churches, and 
allows that none, his own included, fully realizes the idea of 
the Christian Church. But let that pass. We are fully aware 
that those who are born in Protestantism, have their minds and 
hearts from youth upwards poisoned against all things Catholic, 
Many, therefore, are undoubtedly in good faith. Whether the 
same may be said of all, is another matter. Who can judge of 
what goes on in the inner conscience of man? of the light he 
receives and rejects? In this sense we grant that intelligent 
Protestants from sincere motives do, at times, stay where they 
are. But it will be difficult for Hase or any one else to show 
that the authors of the Reformation were guided by sincere 
anxicty for the salvation of their souls, It is simply a matter 
of history that the success of the entire movement in the 16th 
century was owing to worldly rather than conscientious motives, 
and that the new religion or learning was imposed by sheer 
force or fanatical misrepresentation upon the common people. 
It is no argument against us to say that some—e.g., Henry IV. 
or Winckelman—have become Catholics from worldly motives. 
Against a few isolated cases there stands a host of distinguished 
converts even in this age, who, as may be seen from the por- 
traits of converts collected by Rass and Rosenthal, have 
heroically exchanged all the world could offer for the humility 
of the cross. Nothing but the purest motives and the supreme 
concern of life and conscience could have prevailed upon them 
to take a step so completely at variance with their natura} 
‘inclinations, their education and prospects in life. Conscience, 
then, is all on the side of Catholicism. But to return to our 


6r P. 53% 


298 THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, <a 


point. The distinction between formal and material heresy, — 
between apostates and dond fide heretics, universally admitted — 
by Catholic Theologians, is anything but uncatholic, or jesuit- 
ical sophistry. On the contrary, it is a natural and necessary 
consequence of the Catholic doctrine, What are called bond 
fide heretics must, in all justice and fairness, be morally con- 
sidered members of the one true visible Catholic Church, 
though they are not visibly in her communion. Thus it 
remains true that there is no salvation outside the Catholic 
Church, 

33-* It may be well here to give a brief survey of the 
different classes of members in the Church, and to show how 
believers can partake of the graces and blessings belonging 
exclusively to the Church. 

First come those who belong to the Church, both outwardly 
and inwardly, that is by internal grace and holiness, these may 
be called the perfect members. If, with God’s grace, they 
persevere to the end, they are sure of salvation. 

Side by side with these are others who belong to the same 
Church in all things external, but whose inner life of grace is either 
wholly or partially lost, [i.e. they have lost not faith or hope, but 
sanctifying grace]. The former are real and visible members,’ 
though imperfect; the latter are practically dead, and belong 
to the Church only in outward form, inasmuch as the Christian 
character was indelibly stamped on their souls in baptism, and 
they undertook to obey the Church, and to perform the duties 
of Christian life. So long as they do not constitute too great a 
danger for the good, they must, according to our Lord’s 
parables, be suffered to remain. For as long as there is life, 
there is hope that one day they may again become worthy 
members of the Church. §, Augustine compares the two 
classes with the sanctuary and the forecourt of the temple. 
The unclean heathen were not admitted beyond the forecourt 
while the Sons of Abraham were permitted to enter the 
sanctuary. As in the ark there were clean and unclean 


62 Contr, Liter. Petil. iii. 3. De Bafpt. i. 10. 143 xvili. 26. 


THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, 299 


anirnals, so in the Church there are good and bad. “But as 
“Noe offered the clean and not the unclean animals in sacrifice, 
“so it is not the wicked but the good that go to God.” 

The third place is occupied by the catechumens. Though not 
yet invested with full membership they have placed themselves 
under the Church’s guidance, have accepted her faith, desire 
baptism, and have resolved to lead Christian lives, in obedience 
to her rules. They aspire to that full and perfect membership 
which is conferred by baptism. They stand as it were, in the 
porch of the Church. 

In the fourth place come those who are wholly outside the 
Church’s pale, namely those who are either formal heretics, or 
schismatics, or excommunicate. They have separated them- 
selves of their own free act and knowledge from the one 
body. The external bonds are snapped asunder, the internal 
aré a mere rope of sand. These members are branches lopped 
off and dead. In virtue of their baptism they are still the 
Church’s subjects, and are bound to obey her, and to return to 
her bosom. So far and no farther there is a radical bond 
remaining ; but in plain speech they_are not members. 

But mere material heretics or schismatics clearly occupy a 
middle place. They are neither in external communion with 
the one visible Church on earth, nor are they wholly cut adrift 
from her. For they are, as we suppose, baptized; they have 
faith in Christ and His religion, so far as it has been brought 
heme to them. Now the Sacrament of baptism and the faith 
preached to them are, as S. Augustine argues in the passage 
quoted above, taken from the Church, to whom they belong by 
right ; and these are in a sense external bonds. In truth tnis 
class of people consider their own communion as /Xe one visible 
Church to which they desire with all their heart to belong. We 
may therefore call them virtual members. Those only are ex- 
cluded from the Church who resist the Divine Spirit, ie. who 
cling to heresy or schism against their better knowledge and 
conviction, 


63 Cc. Donat. iii. Qe Bfo 


300 THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 


The bonds, that link men to the Church are as many there- 
fore, and as varied as in the human body. They are external and 
internal, visible and invisible, essential and accidental. In order 
to illustrate them in a compendious manner, S, Augustine ®& 
used a comparison that has since passed into gencral use—the 
comparison between the outward and inward man, between the 
soul and body. Spiritual gifts are the soul of the Church, 
while external confession of faith and the use of the Sacraments 
are the body. Those who are inwardly and outwardly joined 
to the Church belong both to the soul and the body. To the 
soul, but not to the body, belong peop'e, like Catechumens and 
excommunicated persons who, though outside the Church, 
possess faith and charity, while those merely outwardly con- 
nected with the Church belong to the body, but not the soul; 
this last is the lowest grade of membership.% Soul and body 
go together. But while the soul can live without the body, the 
body without the soul is dead.* eid 

34. ‘he reason for this difference is to be sought in God’s 
mercy to all men. He has, indeed, ordained external means 
and a visible Church as necessary conditions, but He has 
been pleased, in condescension to human infirmity, to come 
to man’s aid in an extraordinary manner. Hence the Sacrament 
of baptism, both as to matter and minister, is so fashioned that 


64 L.c. x0, 20. 
6s Bellarm. Tom. ii. 1. 3, 2. S. Thom. iii. q. viii. a. 3. 
* To some the author's remerks in this and the following paragraph will seem singularty 
inconsistent. On the one nandit is said that all men are bound to become members 
of the Catholic Church (i.e. of the body of the Church). in order to partake of the 
life that is in the body (i.e. the life of the soul). On the other hand the lite of the 
soul is said to be obtainable outside the body and independently of it, the soul being 
more capacious than tke body Hence students are often bewildercd when they 
are told that some belong to the soul of the Church but not to the body. ‘The 
answer, indeed, may hold good for all practical purposes ; but theoretically it is 
doubtless inaccurate and inconsistent. It is better to say that though men may belong 
to the body without velonging to the soul, yet no one can belong to the soul, unless 
he belongs in some way to the body ; or, as we have 1emarked in a previous note, 
unless he satishies, to the best of his present abilities, the moral obligation of 
belonging to the body of the Church. Now it is easy to see how the dena-fide 
heretic or schismatic satisfies this obiigation by the very fact of being in good faith. 
The same may be said of heathens who are in invincible and inculrable ignorance. 
Their good faith, then, is, morally speaking, the bond that links them, as far as is 
posible or necessary, tothe body of the Church. Thus the beautiful and expressive 


* 
4 


sna 


THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, 3or 


it can be administered everywhere and by everyone. For the 
same reason the fundamental truths of the Gospel are so easy 
that ail without distinction can apprehend them. Nor does 
God’s mercy stop short here. As the Old Testament was a 
type of the Church, and remission of sins was possible in view 
of the redemption to come, so the heathen are not left without 
all hope and comfort. Here we cannot stop to discuss at what 
moment the command as to baptism becomes of formal obli- 
gation. But, anyhow, it applies in a different manner to those 
who are aware and to those who are unaware of the existence 
of baptism. God wishes all men to be saved, and He refuses 
to no one what is necessary for his salvation. ‘Therefore we 
conclude that there must be yet another road to salvation open. 

Little as the actual life }ed by the heathen gives ground for 
sanguine hopes, still they always retain their natural power 
of knowing God, and the voice of conscience proclaiming his 
eternal law is ever resounding within them. S. Augustine’s 
phrase, that all the virtues of the heathen were refined vices® 
has never, in this form, been adopted by the Church, notwith- 
standing its great similarity with the twenty-secend Canon of 
the second Council! of Orange (A.D, 529). For the same Synod 
teclares that original sin has neither extinguished the light 
of reason nor strangled free-will, And the Council of Trent 
adopted this decree. The Fathers, while painting in colours of 


metaphor of body and soul, as applied to the Church, is consistently applied. By 
the body of the Church is meant (1) the framework or skcieton, nameiy, Pope, 
Bishops, Priests, and faithful; (2) the sinews and ligaments, namely, tne word of 
God as preached by authority and obediently accepted; the Sacraments and 
worship, lawfuily administered by the divinely appointed organs. By the soud of 
the Churchare meant the internal effects of spiritual jife produced by the preaching 
of the word of God and the Sacraments of the Church; the life of faith, hope and 
charity, and the supernatural life of grace. From this we see at a glance that the 
true baptism of heretics, and the divine truth that they still preach, are in reality 
some o: the visible ligaments of the Church, stretched beyond their natural limits, 
and which may serve to connect those who are in good taith with the body and 
consequently with the soul of the Church. When, therefore, we say that the 
Church is necessary for sa!vation, we must mean the body, unless we either utter 
an empty tautology, or beg the whole question. 77 


66 C. Jul. iv. 3. Ernst, Die Werke und Tuvenden der Ungliubigen nach Augustinus, 
Freiburg 1871. Ou S. Ambrose and other Fathers, see Kathoilik 1888, 1. 3726 


302 THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 


glaring hideousness the moral depravity of the heathen, never 
denied freewill. 

It is part of God’s providence, says S. Thomas, to come 
providentially to the aid of each one in all that is necessary 
to his salvation, if only man, on his side, places no obstacle 
in the way. ‘Were a man, bred in the woods or among the 
“beasts, to follow the natural instinct of his reason by desiring 
“good and avoiding evil, God would most certainly make 
“known to such a one what he must believe, either by an 
“immediate revelation, or by sending a special messenger, as- 
** He sent Peter to Cornelius.” Theologians still dispute as to 
how S. Thomas conceived this preparation for grace. Probably 
he followed the mere severe doctrine of predestination (?). 
But, in any case, he grants that th: one saving Church does 
not iuthlessly damn all outside her. Dante understood him 
aright in that beautiful passage in which he points to the child 
born on the banks of the Indus, where no one breathes the 
name of Jesus Christ. 


ss... 6. )6Here confess reveal’d ae 
That covert, which hath hidden from thy search 
The living justice, of the which thou mad’st 
Such frequent question; for thou saidst—‘ A man 
Is born on Indus’ banks, and none is there 
Who speaks of Christ, nor who doth read nor write 
And all his inclinations and his acts, 
As far as human reason sees, are good 
And he offendeth not in word or deed. 
But unbaptiz’d he dies, and void of faith. 
Where is the justice that condemns him? where 
His blame if he believeth not?’ § 

aes. Un uom nasce alla riva 

Dell’ Indo; e quivi non é chi ragioni 

Di Christo, né chi legga, ne chi scrivae 

E tutti suoi voleri ed atti buoni 


Sono, quanto umana ragione vede 
Senza peccato in vita od in sermoni$ 
Muore non battezate e senza fede: 
Ov’ @ questa giustizia che ‘| condanna? 
Ov' @ Ja colpa, sed ei non crede? 


The author, we fear, has misunderstood this passage of Dante. See /n/ferno, Canto iv. 
24-42. Tr. 

67 De Verit. q. xiv. a. rr ad 1. See Denzinger, Relig. Erkennt. i. 164. Fis—her, 
De Salut. Infidel. Frib. 1886. 

68 Paradiso xix. 7o Cary’s Tr.) 


THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, 303 


S. Thomas’ view is followed by most Theologians of our own 
day. Kant is quite mistaken in supposing that this view was 
discovered by modern Rationalism. Its only discovery is 
that one Church is as profiivable to salvation as another, and 
that natural religion is sufficient for all men. To say that it is 
a dogma of the Catholic and Protestant Churches alike that 
the heathen are damned,” is inexact. For the Catholic Church, 
while prizing the blessings of Christianity beyond measure, has 
never yet depreciated the natural gifts and capacities for truth 
and goodness, which are the groundwork of supernatural 
religion itself. In both respects she differs from Protestantism. 
Her idea of justification by grace, is that of a real internal 
holiness superadded to the natural goodness of man, which 
consequently has never been lost by the sin and fall of the 
first man. And modern investigations in the history of religion 
have justified the Catholic position. For not only is there 
nowhere to be found a people devoid of religion, but Oriental 
religious systems are proof positive that rich stores of religious 
knowledge and morality lie buried in heathenism. Low as man 
is fallen, God’s image is not completely effaced. But the 
more highly the Catholic. Church appraises man’s natural 
powers, the more she is bound to insist on preparation for 
justification, and on a striving after holiness in those justified. 
She supposes, of course, that the proofs both for the truth of 
Christianity, and for the Catholic Church, shine so clearly and 
and so resplendently, that those who are in an honest search 
for truth, and become acquainted with her doctrine and history, 
will be able to find the true faith. 

35. These principles determine the Church’s attitude to- 
wards sinners and her disobedient children, as well as towards 
heretics and schismatics. She tolerates sinners for the sake of 
the good, and in the hope that the lost sheep may again return 


69 Perone vii.151. Kleutgen-Oswald. 

70 Natirl. welig. Hartmann’s Ed. vi. 27%. 290. 
yx Strauss, Glaubenslehre 1. 99. 

7 Mohler, 4 ¢. p. 81. 


304 _ THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, 


to the fold. Should success, however, not wait-on her efforts, 
and should she find them stubborn and unyielding, and 
hardened in resistance, then the Church, according to our 
Lord’s and S. Paul’s instructions, is justified in considering 
such an one as a heathen and a publican, and in delivering his 
body to Satan, in order that his soul may be saved. Excom-: 
munication is a necessary weapon for every independent society 
that is brought in conflict with malevolent individuals. Hence, 
says Origen, the Church should have no members but such as 
are good and holy, but, according to our Lord’s words, the 
cockle must be allowed to grow, and only notorious sinners be 
weeded out.78 

36. ‘This seems the place to say a word as to the treatment 
of heretics in particular. Heretics have always been ranked in 
the general class of sinners, though heresy be a sin of a specially 
malignant type. For it was the general belief that shipwreck of 
the faith could not have been suffered without grave moral 
fault. Heresy was in itself a sin, and sin is its source. Hence 
the Fathers did not hesitate to apply to heretics and schismatics 
the parables of the cockle among the wheat, and of the good 
and bad fishes (usually explained of the morally good and 
wicked), although our Lord himself seems to have intended 
the wider application ; for He describes the field as the world, 
and not the Church. But, their detestation of heresy notwith- 
standing, they are careful to insist on patience and long-suffering 
in dealing with the erring, in order to win them back. Exclusion 
from the Church’s pale they require only in order to avert 
pernicious influences from the faithful.“ §. Chrysostom, 
commenting on Matth. x1. 30, gives excellent advice as to 
the treatment of those who have gone astray, but he comes 


to the conclusion that the mouths of obstinate rebels must 


73 See Harnack I. 337 Note 3. Schwane I. 722, 

974 Chrys. /z Matth. xiii. 30. Aug. Efist. 100, 1, 28. C. Gaud. ii. 10. C. Ep. Manich. i. 
De Unit. 411.55. Ep. 88; 933185. C. Crese. iii. 47. Cyrill. Alex. /# Joan. xviii. m. 
Procop. Ad Gen. xxxiv. 1 See Schanz, Comm in Matth. p. 344.  Résler, 
Prudentius, p. 206 


ioe 


THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 305 


be stopped. Writers who are quick to reproach the Church with 
severity should not forget that, as a rule, heretics were the 
aggressors, and would, if they could, have torn in pieces the 
mother that bore them. Where they gained the upper hand, 
they put in motion the very laws and principles which they 
bitterly resented when applied to themselves. This was notably 
the case with the Donatists in Africa, whose position Augustine 
confuted by a reductio ad absurdum, They readily. acquiesced 
in the emperor’s laws against heathen temples, and even put in 
force, in their own interests, the statutes against heretics as 
against the adherents of Maximinus; but when the Church 
pursued the same policy, they cried out: persecution, oppression! 
S. Augustine says that in his earlier commentaries he had 
put a milder interpretation on the words: compelle intrare 
(Luke xiv. 23), because he had not then learnt all the wicked- 
ness and malevolence of which schismatics and heretics were 
capable. In proof we necd only quote from his Epistle (23577) 
“I shall not however do this (meet in conference with Bishop 
“ Maximinus and have the letters of both sides publicly read) 
“in the presence of the soldiery, lest any of you should think 
‘that I wish to act in a violent way, rather than as the interests 
‘of peace demand ; but only after their departure, that all who 
‘hear me may understand that I do not propose to compel men 
“to embrace the communion of any party, but desire the truth 
“to be made known to persons who, in their search for it, 
“are free from disquieting apprehensious. On our side there 
“shall be no appeal to men’s fear of the civil power; on your 
“side, let there be no intimidation by a mob of Circumcelliones. 
“Let us attend to the real matter in debate, and let our argu- 
“ments appeal to reason and to the authoritative teaching of 
“the Divine Scriptures.”* Later on, however, when defending 
the imperial edicts, he formed the opinion that it would do 
gocd to use force towards schismatics, because it woula compel 


Clark's cr, 


306 THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 


them to listen to the truth, and might eventually lead to their 
sincere conversion. 

37. The Fathers, desiring the sinner’s \mprovement and 
conversion, would hear nothing of blood-shed. Only in very 
extreme cases they sought to justify the punishment of death ; 
but even then they never advocated or recommended it. 
Their sharpest strictures were confined to the spiritual swo:d 
and spiritual weapons.7® However severe the judgments 
passed on heretics and others outside the Church in Patristic 
times, their punishment, according to the Apostle’s teaching, 
was left to Satan, no kind of external violence or compulsion 
being used against them.76 ; 

The first execution of a heretic was carried out by order of 
a pretender to the empire. Priscillian, indeed, was excom- 
municated by the Synod of Saragossa (380), but Maximus was 
not therefore authorized to execute him, along with several of 
his adherents, at Trier in 335. By declining the investigation 
of the Bishops at Bordeaux (384), Priscillian surrendered to 
the secular power. ‘“‘ Lest he should be cross-examined by the 
“bishops, he appealed to the governor, and thus dug his own 
“grave.” Maximus was certainly urged to take this step by 
some bishops, but Martin of Tours, Ambrose, Pope Siricius 
and others discountenanced it. Martin, at great danger to his 
person, strove to arrest the persecution of heretics. Leo the 
Great, in his letter to Turribius, while approving the act in 
itself, proves that Priscillian was put to death more as a traitor 
than as a heretic. ‘Rightly, indeed, our Fathers, in whose 
“day this godless heresy broke out, had recourse to every 
“earthly measure to stamp it out of the Church. And with all 
“the more reason, as secular princes stood in such abhorrence 
“fof this delirious teaching that they cut down its author and 
“many of his followers with the sword. For they knew full 
* well that honesty would vanish, the marriage tie be snapped 


75 Zockler, Hievom/mus, p. 438. 
76 Langen, Das Neue Testam. bei den Kirchenvatern, p. 11g 


THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 307 


~ 


‘asunder, and all divine and human law bea heap of ruins, 
“if men who taught such doctrines were allowed to live. 
‘“Fora long time the Church, gentle herself, profited by 
‘‘ this secular severity ; for, content with episcopal deci- 
‘‘ sions, she forbears to punish by shedding blood. Still 
‘‘ she is supported by the severe laws of Christian princes, 
‘since those who dread corporal punishment frequently fly 
‘for refuge to spiritual remedies.’’™ The legislative en- 
actments framed by the emperors against the Manichzeans 
and Donatists were, to some extent, harsh, but the death 
penalty was reserved for the most extreme cases. 

38. The Gnostic and Manichzean views on marriage and 
the family, authority and property were transmitted by 
various channels to the Middle Ages, and compelled the secu- 
lar and ecclesiastical authorities to keep a sharp outlook. 
The more the two powers worked together for a common 
end, the clearer it became that the “ secular arm’’ should 
support the spiritual in keeping the faith pure, in preserv- 
_ing unity, and in protecting the foundations of moral and 
social life. In the time of Gregory VII., death was consti- 
tuted the penalty for formal heresy. S. Thomas and other 
scholastics defend it, indeed, but uniformly restrict it to 
those who obstinately persist intheirerror, ‘ Phet Church: 
‘’ filled with compassion, seeks the conversion of him who 
‘" goes astray, and hence, following the Apostle’s instruc- 
‘tions, does not condemn him till after the first and second 
“admonition. But then, if he stil] continues obdurate, the 
“ Church, no longer entertaining any hope of his conversion, 
‘looks to the interests of others by excommunicating him. 
‘In the last resort, she delivers him to the secular arm, 
" that death may rid the world of him.’ The princi- 
ples which justify this course of procedure may, with S. 
Thomas, be briefly summed up in the fact that heretics have 


77 Ep. 15,1. On S. Martin, see Sever, D7ad, iii. 11. Rosier, 2. c. p. 15. Kirchenlexicon, 


1 ed, vi, 906; viii. 779. 


78" il. ii. q. xi. a, 33/4. 


~~ 


308 THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. 


falsified true dectrine. If they who utter base coin are severely 


punished, why should one be fastidiously indulgent towards men 
who lead souls astray? In that age false teachers were adjudged 
as offenders against society. And the justice of this view will 
hardly be disputed when it is remembered that some, like the 
Cathari and Albigenses, tried to undermine the moral foundation 
of society. In turn they laid siege to marriage, pulled down 
the fabric of property, and laid all authority level with the dust. 
Hence Church and State felt bound to take up arms in self- 
defence. . 

39, All this resulted in the estabiishment of the Inquisition, 
the first beginnings of which reach back as far as 1184. 
Vrederick II. (1224) and Gregory IX. (1231) ordered obstinate 
heretics to be burnt to death. The secular power carried the 
sentence into execution, to save the principle: Lcclesia non 
sitit sanguinem, ecclesia abhorret a sanguine—The Church 
thirsts not for blood, the Church abhors blood (Nicholas I.). 
Of course the spiritual judges knew full well the fate that 
awaited the poor wretches delivered over to the secular arm. 


For these proceedings were adopted and sanctioned by Canon 


Law. But the fact that the civil power considered heresy a 
crime deserving of death, proves that this tribunal was 
thoroughly in accord with the spirit of the age, and not the 
outcome of ecclesiastical ambition or intolerance. The history 
of the Inquisition shows, too, that the Inquisition, more 
particularly in Spain, was an instrument in the hands of Princes 
for making away with obnoxious clerics or laymen. Before the 
battte of Cappel, Clement VII. interceded with the Catholic 


Cantons for the Zwinglians. Paul III. admonished Francis I. . 


to be lenient and to forego the punishment of death; Pius V. 
warned Piilip II. of Spain not to shed blood in the Nether- 
lands; Innocent XI. condemned the dragonnades of Louis 
XIV. The Catholic Parliament of Paris (1555-1559) voted 
against putting heretics to death. These facts should not be 


79 Déilinger, lc. p. s1* Funk, 296. Hergenréther, ii. 483. 


THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, 305 


Jost sight of by those who make capital out of Gregory XIII.’s 

glorification of the S. Bartholomew massacre (which under the 
circumstances was excusable) and the rejoicing of Innocent XI. 
over the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. 

Nowadays no one will commend all this, or excuse all abuses, 
or would desire a return to those times and customs. Still, if 
we would be just, we must judge of events in the light of time 
and contemporary circymstances. Varicus elements were 
abroad that were a danger to Church and State. Hostile 
Moors and Jews occupied Spain, and under a Christian mask 
were making war on Christianity. All this demanded the 
keenest vigilance. Every age chooses the means that best suit 
its dominant ideas, Many nations were then in a state of flux 
and formation, and required stringent laws. The civil law, too, 
dealt out heavy punishments. Taking our stand on our 
advanced civilization, it is easy to form an adverse judgment; 
but it is difficult to say by what other method savage peoples 
could have been civilized. The boy is not trained into a 
perfect man without severity and firm treatment. In the oath 
still taken by bishops there is, indeed, the passage: Hereticos 
pro posse perseguar. But in Germany, at least, it is omitted, 
and, in any case, it must be interpreted according to modern 
ecclesiastical principles and customs. A hishop’s duty is to 
preserve the faith pure and entire in his diocese. A spiritual 
campaign against heresy, in the spirit of Christian charity and 
pastoral solicitude, is also certainly part of a Catholic bishop’s 
duty. Such a campaign Protestants are constantly conducting 
against Rome and the Catholic Church. Why should not 
Catholics be allowed to do the same? Again, if States ex- 
clusively Catholic are unwilling to allow a footing to another 
creed, it is surely not for those to complain from whom 
emanated the axiom cujus regio, tllius religio. And then, it 
must be remembered, there is a great difference in point 
of right. Catholics are defending a right of long standing, 
sanctioned by ages; they are in possession, while Protestants 


310 THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, 


are encroaching, innovating, disturbing.8? For the rest, Pro- 
testants have adopted the same principle of exclusiveness, 
Many Northern States uphold it to this day. To the principle 
itself, no one but a Rationalist can object. The lowest estimate. 
of Christianity will suffice to feel that unity of faith is a national 
boon. Moreover, that unity is intimately bound up with public 
peace and order. And, assuredly, unity of faith and public 
order are a greater good than freedom of worship.8t The real 
question at-issue is, who has the right to apply the principle? 
The Catholic Church has both a divine right, in virtue of her 
divine institution and Apostolicity, and the human right of 
possession which she cannot forfeit in any age or country. 
Protestants, as we have said, claim and exercise the right to be 
exclusive, with regard to other communities, wherever they are 
in the ascendant.® 
40. Now that we are discussing the principle of religious toler- 
ation, we may ask, what was the teaching of the Reformers on 
this head? Did not they follow the very maxim that they 
ceasured so severely in others? Did not Luther find his chief 
delight in cursing the Pope? Did he not call upon Christians 
“to seize the Pope, and all the popish entourage of idolatry ? 
“to tear out the tongues of the accursed crew by the roots ?” 
to pitch into the sea ‘‘all the hateful scoundrels, bag and 
“ bageage—Popse, and Cardinals, and the whole papal rabble?” 
Kohler cooly remarks: ‘ Luther, as well as the whole age of 
“the Reformation, had not discovered the golden means 
“between the principle of liberty of conscience and the moral 
“duty of rulers to protect religion; hence it is not to be 
“wondered at, if he has strongly contradicted himself on this 
80 Dillinger, p. 51. 63.—The above remark of the author deserves special attention. It 
is often said that Queen Elizabeth, in persecuting Catholics, did but apply the 
principle of her Catholic predecessors. What then? The question is what right 
had she so to act? Unless we proceed on Erastian principles, it must be admitted 
that Catholics, both as a body and as individuals, had the human as well as the 
divine right of possession on their side. Hence her persecution was absolutely 
unjust, illegal, and tyrannical.—7”. 


3x Doillinger, p. 88. 485. Syllabus, Prop. 77. 
82 Hase, p. 57. Perrone, 1.290. Syllab. Prop. 96 ‘ 


THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, 31! 


“point.” Luther, Brenz, Bucer, Capito, teach that all heretics 
should be extirpated, and the “‘ meek and gentle” Melancthon 
seeks to defend this doctrine. Dollinger, an unprejudiced 
witness, thus writes: ‘‘ The Protestant theory of the absolute 
“ authority of the State in ecclesiastical matters made it im- 
“possible for the civil power to be tolerant. Historically, 
“nothing can be less true than the assertion that the Reforma. 
‘tion was a movement in favour of liberty of conscience. The 
“precise contrary is the truth. Lutherans and Calvinists, 
“indeed, like all men in every age, claimed liberty of 
‘conscience for themselves, but it never occurred to them, 
** when they had the upper hand, to extend it to others. The 
“complete suppression and extirpation of the Catholie Church 
“was the goal of all the Reformers. From the very first they 
‘called upon princes and magistrates to abolish by force the 
‘ritual of the ancient Church. In England, Ireland, Scotland, 
“and Sweden, they proceeded to such extremes as to punish 
“every exercise of the Catholic religion with death.” Were 
authentic statistics forthcoming as to the number of those who 
suffered for the Catholic faith in these countries, the number 
of victims would, at the very least, be as great as those who 
suffered, often on purely secular grounds, at the hands of the 
Inquisition. Hase gives the numbers furnished by Llorente, 
who has long since been unmasked ; but he adds, as in duty 
bound, that the can lay no claim to be completely trustworthy. 
Perhaps he thought that the end sanctifies the means, 

Protestant Scholastics were far more intolerant, not merely 
to Catholics but also to Reformers and in regard of other 
creeds, than the Catholic Schoolmen had.ever been. 

Calvin, in his work, “ De hereticis jure gladii coercendts,” 
declares that it is allowable in the civil power to punish heretics. 
And he puts his contention on the same ground as the old 
Scholastics had done. ‘I ask you,” he exclaims, ‘‘ whether it 
“be right that heretics should murder souls, by poisoning them 


83 L.c. gp. 68. See Janssen, 11. 378; iii. 17. 50. 80. 106; iv. 334; Vv. 138. 


312 THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, 


“with errors, and that we should prevent the sword from 
“taking their lives as God command.d?” The mere revolt 
on the part of heretics against the kingdom set up by God 
seemed to him fully to justify the penalty of death. Hence he 
counselled magistrates to employ every means to render heretics 
incapable of doing harm. His friend Beza declared liberty of 
conscience a devilish doctrine and a devilish liberty. He 
wanted Anti-trinitarians, even if they recanted, to be put to 
death. And so Michael Servetus had to expiate his errors with 
his death. The several Calvinist churches were not ashamed 
to give proofs in writing that the civil magistrates were justified 
and in duty bound to draw the sword against all heretics, 
i.e. all non-Calvinists.84 “Kings and statesmen, theologians 
“and philosophers, were all agreed, that neither Catholics nor 
“any Church or party that swerved from the established Church 
“should be tolerated.” ‘ Everywhere,” says even Niebuhr, 
“in England, Scotland, and Geneva, Calvinism erected as many 
* blood stained scaffolds as the Inquisition, but without any of the 
“merits of these Catholic institutions’ But in North America, 
Maryland, colonized by the Catholic Lord Baltimore, was the 
home of freedom of conscience ‘and religious tolerance. In 
1649 the General Assemby passed the first American toleration 
ACE! 

A Protestant author, not very partial to Catholics, thus writes 
on Luther: “‘ His propositions as to the necessity of employing 
“secular coercion in matters of faith; his conception of the 
‘Church, and his ideas of the clerical state, seemed a mere 
‘‘resuscitation of memories that had lain in the depths of his 
“soul from an earlier period of his lire.”8* In regard to the 
punishment of heretics, Luther put forward the same views as 
those in which the opposite party acted, and which commonly 


84 Dollinger, p. 154. Niebuhr, Nachgel. Schriften, Hamburg, 1842, p. 288, af 
Dillinger, p. 123. Lammer, /ust/t, des Kan. Rech‘es. Freiburg, 1886, p. 293 
Protestant reply by Kohler, in 7heol. Liter. Ze:tz. .838. Nr. 4. See also Hist. 
Pol. Blatter, 1888, rot, 4-6. Art. Zoleranz und Into.eranz. 


85 Keller, Die Reformation, p. 361, 446, 460. 


THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, 3r3 


prevailed in theory and practice. “If the ‘brethren’ had 
“cherished the hope that in the new church a certain toleration 
“would be extended at least to the ancient churches, they were | 
“quickly undeceived. If under the Roman Inquisitors they 
“had been chastised with rods they were now to be flogged 
“with scorpions, and the blood of the poor flowed like water.” 
Even Melancthon wanted Anabaptists to be killed. 

How is it, that the Reformers clung to the principle ? was it 
owing to external circumstances rather than to their new 
religion? Fear cannot be alleged as the motive, because the 
Reformers were well protected under the wing of the secular 
princes. ‘ The reason (especially after 1552) for the resolute 
“adhesion to the principle of compulsion in faith lay in the 
“circumstances that it was intimately bound up with the entire 
“doctrinal system. Hence they were compelled either to 
“secure the fabric by punishing heretics, or, by waiving the 
“point, to shake the entire fabric to its foundation. And the 
“case stands in the same position to this day. To deny com- 
‘“‘pulsion in matters of faith wouid make a breach in the 
“system, that would inevitably result in its total collapse.” It 
is quite irrelevant to say that Protestants so acted in contradic- 
tion to the essential principles of their Church, “thinking it in 
“its transient form to be infallible and necessary to salvation,” 
but that Catholics acted up to their belief (Hase); for the 
Reformers must have been well acquainted with a principle 
they so vigorously applied. If the principle was then historically 
justified, and if for several centuries it has exacted holocausts 
in many lands, it cannot be a misrepresentation to connect it 
essentially with their.faith. It was only given up because it 
could no longer be enforced. In England, says Dollinger, 
after a struggle lasting for a century and a half, amid pools of 
blood, in contradiction with the essential principles of primitive 
Protestantism, men at last gained, by dint of hard Qahting, the 
liberty not to belong to the State-Church. 

Hase finds “some excuse for intolerance in the revolutionary 


314 THE CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, 


“designs of the Anabaptists which were closely connected 
“wit the uprising of the peasantry, and threatened to pull 
‘““down all social order.” But he forgets that Luther raved 
against ecclesiastical and imperial authority, and was not 
wholly guiltless of the destruction of social order consequent 
on the revolt of the peasantry %6 

Protestants glory in their Church being the Church that 
protests “against creature authority,” and is “in accordance 
“with the ordinances of Scripture in regard to Church life ”8? 
Had not the Anabaptists, from their point of view, the right to 
make a like protest? Catholics are severely censured for 
describing Protestantism as “an act of rebellion against the 
“authority of the Church;” but what else is the Protestant 
whimsical protest? Of course every man can justify his 
position from his own point of view. Was there ever a heresy 
that could not? Protestants, then, as well as Catholics, have 
reason to cali to mind “ miider and gentler feelings,” to remem- 
ber the Christian spirit “that has ever silently protested against 
"8° The Catholic Church was inspired by this spirit from 
the . *vinning, Ghe has inflicted punishment not for itz own 
sake, but bec: "ze the eternal salvation of men was hanging in 
the balance. 

41. But to bring this discussion to aciose. The doctrine of 
the Catholic Church is consistent throughout. ‘lhe admission 
that baptism may be validly administered outside the Catholic 


Church, and that sins are forgiven, and graces imparted in_ 


heretical communities, in no way contradicts what some are 
pleased to cali the ‘monopoly of salvation ” theory. For that 
admission is as old as the Church. Again, if excommunication 
which, according to Catholic belief, ‘1s an exclusion from the 
““one Church of salvation, and a handing over of the soul so 
“ousted to Satan,” 1s not irrevocable because the Curse Can be 


86 Keller, p. 398. Jenssen, ii. 4o9. 
87 Schmidt, Studien und Kritiken, 1337. p. 624. Hase, p.55 
88 Hase, p. 50. See Déilinger, p. 75, 81, 137, 153, 378 


THE CHURCH NECESSARY FCR SALVATION. 315 


undone, this is not “toning down the doctrine,” but following 
the example of the Apostles. The Church has but one wish 
for those outside her communion ; that they may, to the best 
of their knowledge and conviction, strive after truth and do 
good. Our Lord Himself who, with infinite patience and 
forbearance, suffered a Judas in the circle of His Disciples, and 
was ever seeking to win over Jews and unbelievers, is her 
model. She follows the axiom laid down by S. Augustine: 
“Spare the men, but slay their errors.” On Good Friday she 
prays for all men in all states and conditions of life: for Jews 
and unbelievers, for heretics and schismatics, that God may 
bring them to the knowledge of His truth.% 


89 Cypr., De don. pat. c. 6. Aug., Sem. 49, 8. Chrys., De anath. c. 40 
yo See Cat. Rom. iv. 5, x 


CHAPTER X. 


TIE CHURCH GE teva 


1. From the earliest times, according to the introduction of - 
S. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, Hodiness has been regarded 
both as a property and as a mark of the true Church. Our Lord 
Himself sanctified His Church that she might be without spot 
or wrinkle. Hence sanctity * must be a sign that can be recog- 
nized. It must appear outwardly and become visible to all. 
This is the necessary condition of a mark as distinguished from 
a property. No doubt prevails among the different confessions 
that the Christian Church must be regarded as the holy Church, 
both by reason of her divine origin, the end for which she was 
instituted, her doctrine and means of sanctification, and her 
guidance by the Holy Spirit. On this point all are agreed. 
The dispute begins when it becomes a question of deciding 
which Church preeminently possesses these characteristics, and 4 
how they are to be recognized. ae 

2. In ancient times this dispute existed only in so far as 
certain sects—like the Montanists, Novatians, and Donatists— 
set themselves up as rivals to the Church, and laid claim to — 
exclusive sanctity. They sought to establish the divine origin 
of their own conventicle, either by posing as the Church of the . 7 
Holy Spirit, or by charging the Catholic Church with laxity, 
and with having fallen from her primitive sanctity. ‘They were 
bound to pervert both the idea of the Church, and that of 


* For the meaning and detinition of the word, see Note 23 at the end of this chapter. = 
Tr. _ 


THE CHURCH HOLY, 317 


her sanctity. They took the words “saints” and “sanctity,” 
in a subjective sense, and contended that none but real 
saints could be members of the Church, or dispense the means 
of grace in the Church. ‘The Fathers, while emphasizing to 
their fullest compass the necessity of sanctity, never favoured 
this extreme view. But they found the Church holy, because 
she possesses the true doctrine and all the means of grace 
instituted by Christ, and because she is the temple of God and 
the Holy Spirit. 

3. Acccrding to Origen the distinction between Church and 
Synagogue lies in this, that the “true Church is without spet 
“or wrinkle or any such thing, and is holy and blameless.”! 
Hence heathens and sinners are not admitted into the Church 
until, “after the tenth generation and in the fulness of time,” 
(Deut. xxi. 3.) they have first been sanctified. “The synagogue, 
“on the contrary, was built by a centurion before Christ’s 
“coming, and before the testimony was given of Him, so that 
“his faith was greater than that which God the Son had found 
“even in Israel.” S. Cyprian gives heartfelt thanks to God the 
Father, and te His Christ, our Lord and Redeemer, because, 
by the return to the Church of those who confessed the Catholic 
faith in Rome,_“ the Church is taken under the divine pro- 
“tection in such a way that the unity and sanctity are placed 
“beyond the danger of being infected with the stubbornness 
“and rebellious spirit of reprobate heretics.” “These conf ssors 
“abjuring error and forsaking schismatics and heretical de- 
“lusions have ayain entered, sound in faith, the abode of 
“truth and unity.”? S. Avhanasius explains the streain of the 
river which maketh the city of God joyful (Ps. xLv. 5), to be 
the word of the Gospel that rejoiceth the heart of the Church. 
“The Most High hath sanctified His tent.’ “ For He is holy, 
“as He reposeth and dwelleth in the holy, i.e. in the Church.” 
Apostles and Evangelists he calls streams (Ps. xcul. 3) because 


1 De Orat. c. 20. 
2 ££. 51,1. Epiph., C. Haer. 23 Te 


318 THE CHURCH. HOLY. 


they water the Church of God with “spiritual living 
‘waters.’ '(John-vir. 38)? “The Church, “ says S. Cyp7zaage 
“openly displays her glory, and grows in the renown of 
‘“her beauty. She has no stain to efface or spot to conceal. 
‘“ Her doctrine is bright as the rays of light.’’ This sanc- 
tifying truth (John xvit. 17-19) is found nowhere but in the 
Catholic Church, and constitutes the first element of her 
sanctity. 

4. Afurther element of sanctity consists in her means of 
grace. He who leaves her, abandons the fountains of living 
water, and diggeth to himself cisterns, containing either 
none, or only polluted water. ‘‘ Our Saviour calls on all 
‘“who thirst to come and drink of the streams of living 
‘water that flow from his body. To whom shall the thirsty 
““soul go? To heretics, who have no fount or stream of 
“living water at all, or to the Church which is one, 
““and is built by the word of the Lord on one, who has re- 
““ ceived the Lord’s keys? This is the one that is invested 
‘““ with all the power of the Lord and bridegroom.’’ ‘‘ The 
‘“ genuine, salutary, and holy water of the Church cannot 
‘“be poisoned or polluted, but is as untainted, pure, and 
““chaste as the Church herself. If heretics surrender to 
‘‘the Church, and are in the Church, they can put to use 
“‘their baptism and the other spiritual blessings they have 
“received. But if they are not in the Church,, or-lift up 
‘“their hand to strike her, how can they be baptized with 
‘“ the Church’s baptism ?’’® We have always so acted 
““as to acknowledge but one Church, and to consider no 
‘baptism but that of the Church as holy.’’ So argues S. 
Cyprian, from his own one-sided stand-point, overlooking 
the universal character of baptism; but the main idea 
underlying his argument, that nowhere but in the Church 
can the fullness of sanctification and the riches of the gifts 
of the Holy Ghost be obtained, was quite correct and caught 
up by S. Augustine, and the Church at large. Anadmission 
of the validity of heretical baptism does not involve, as 
Cyprian wrongly inferred, the further admission that, once 


3 Cyr., Zp. 73, 113 75,19. Cf. Zeno Veron., Tract. il. 77. 


THE CHURCH HOLY. 319 


heretical baptism is acknowledged, all the gifts of grace might 
be received out of the Church. The man sanctified in baptism 
‘is a temple of God and the Holy Spirit, but only if he has the 
true faith ; for he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. 

The emperor Constantine, in his address to the ‘ assembly 
of the saints” dedicated to the Church,‘ speaking of the change 
that had been wrought in heathen viciousness through redemp- 
tion, says: ‘‘ Jesus Christ having enriched the earth with the 
‘virtues of chastity, wisdom and temperance, when He returned 
“to His Father’s mansion, founded His Church [on earth] to 
“be a holy temple of virtue, which was to remain pure for ever, 
‘and in which sacrifice and worship were to be offered to the 
“supreme God, His Father, and to Himself.” He addresses 
the Church as the ‘‘protectress of tender and inexperienced 
‘Cage, who is all truth and gentleness, from whose inexhaustible 
“source stream the waters of eternal life.” The words of the 
Psalmist: ‘Sanctity becometh thy house,” (Ps. xcul. 5), S. 
Athanasius applies to the Church. ‘“ His house is the Church. 
“Tt is, indeed, fitting that she should be holy, as he dwells in 
“her; who alone is holy. But when this has come to pass, 
“she will attain endless sanctity.” ‘ His sanctification is the 
“Church, which is holy and glorious. For the Church’s jewels 
“are magnificent.” (Ps. Xcv. 6). 

S. Leo extols the grace that in Christ has been given to all 
men, in order that all, by observing Christian discipline, may 
strive for holiness. Christ, by fulfilling it, became the end of 
the Law, and transformed, in the New Testament, the sacra- 
ments of typical promises. ‘ What the Son of God has done 
“or taught for the reconciliation of the world, we not only learn 
“from the history 0° past events, but we know and feel its 
“power from its present effects. He who by the Holy Ghost 
‘was born of a virgin mother, maxes by the operation of the 
“same Holy Spirit, the Church a fertile mother, so that by the 


4 Euseb., Vita Const. v. 13 iv. 32. Cyrill. Hier., Cat, xxviii. 25. 26. Chrysost. Homi, 
in If Tim. vi. a 


320 THE CHURCH HOLY. 


“birth of baptism an endless multitude of children of God 
“are born.” The whole body of the Church is so adorned 
“by God with numberles: gifts of grace, that the many rays of 
this new light make he: always shine with the same splendour 
“6... this is that tue ight which justifies and enlightens 
* every man.”° 

5. The full development, however, of the doctrine of the 
Sacraments—that is, the means 0. grace and sanctity—was 
reserved for the Scholastics. These began to draw the line 
more sharply between the Sacraments and the Sacramentals, 
which are exorcisms a..d blessings for the protectio:. of persons 
and things against evil spirits The seven sacraments now 
stood out as a solid, sacred circle; their nuraber, and relations 
with one another and with their conmon centre, the Biessed 
Eucharist, as Sacrament and Sac.ifice, wer more closely 
enquired into and defined. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, 
in which Christ’s su..-..nzs and death are solemnly commemo- 
rated, and the bloody sacrifice of Calvary 1s renewed in an 
unbloody manner, appears as the source of all the grace that 
streams forth to the faithful, thiough the Sacraments, like 
channels. To man, weighed down by sin and life’s heavy burden, 
it must be a thouyht of wonderful consolation, merely to know 
that this unbloody sacrifice 1s the realization of that pure sacri- 
fice which the prophet Malachias foretold was to be offered to 
God in every place. But far greater comfort and strength will 
he derive from the thought that on the altar He is present who 
has said: ‘Come to me all you that labour and are burdened, 
‘and I will refresh you.” (Matth. x1. 28). 

6. The other Sacraments are so clustered round this centre 
of Christian life and grace that they may be compared to a 
crown of choice fresh flowers whose penetrating fragrance 
serves to permeate, ennoble and transform man’s entire life. 
The Schoolmen were fond of pointing out how admirably the 
seven Saciaments are adapted for sanctilying the whole range 


5 Serito. 62 (63) 6. Je 


a ae at tae | 


— 


THE CHURCH HOLY. 321 


of human life. Seven was always considered a sacred num- 
ber, and it could hardly be without deep signification in the 
case of the Sacraments. Alexander Hales thinks that they 
are so adapted by reason of their bearing on the ills and 
maladies of the soul and society, or because of the relation in 
which they stand to the virtues that are specially given by the 
several graces. S. Bonaventure adds that they give the graces 
necessary in the different stages of the struggle to those who 
conquer the kingdom of God. §. Thomas draws a parallel 
between the material and spiritual life, and their respective 
needs, and shows how the seven Sacraments minister to the 
needs of the soul.® 

To give an idea how this theme is developed, we subjoin the 
explanation of the Roman Catechism, which in the main follows 
S. Thomas :— 

“ But why they are neither more nor less in number may be 
“shown, with some probability, even from the analogy that 
exists between natural and spiritual life. In order to live, to 
“ preserve life, and to contribute to his own and to the public 
“ good, these seven things seem necessary to man :—namely, to 
“be born—to grow—to be nurtured—to be cured when sick—to 
“be strengthened when weak ;—next, as regards the common- 
“ wealth, that magistrates, by whose authority and power it may 
“be governed, be never wanting—and, finally, to perpetuate 
‘himself and his species by the propagation of legitimate off- 
a spring. Analogous, then, as all those things obviously are to 
“that life by which the soul lives to God, from them will be 
“ easily inferred the number of the Sacraments. For the first 
“is baptism, the gate, as it were, to all the rest, by which we 
“are born again to Christ. The next is confirmation, by virtue 
“ of which we grow up, and are strengthened in Divine Grace: 
“for, as S. Augustine bears witness: To the Apostlés, who 
“had not already been baptized, the Lord said, ‘Stay you in 


6 Alex. Hal. Summ. Theol. iv. a. 8. Membr. 7. a. 2 Bonav., Brevil. vi. G } 
Thom. iii. q. 65. a. 1. Catech Rom. ii. 1. 15. 


322 THE CHURCH HOLY. 


“the city till you be endued with power from on high.’ (Ep. 
108). The third is the Eucharist by which, as by a truly 
‘celestial food, our spirtt is nurtured and sustained; for of it 
“the Saviour has said ‘My flesh is meat indeed, and my 
***hlood 1s drink indeed. (John vi. 56). ‘‘ Penance follows 
‘in the fourth place, by the aid of which lost health is restored, 
“after we have received the wounds of sin. The fifth is 
“extreme unction, by which the remains of sin are removed, 
“and the energies of the soul are invigorated: for, speaking 
“of this Sacrament, S. James has testihed thus: ‘If he be 
“fin sins, they shall be forgiven him.’ (James v.15). Order 
“follows, by which power is given to exercise perpetually in 
“the Church the public ministry of the Sacraments, and to 
*‘ perform ail the sacred functions (Acts xi. 2 sq.3 I Tim. Iv. 
“14; Il Tim.1. 6). Lastly, is added matrimony that, by the 
“legitimate and holy union of man ard woman, children may 
“be begotten and religiously brought up to the worsnip of God, 
“and t: e conservation of the human race.” (Eph. v. 31, sq.) 

7. To this utterance from an ecclesiastical quarter, we may 
be allowed, perhaps, to add one from a profane source. We 
would recall the celebrated passage from Goethe on the Sacra- 
ments of the Catholic Church. Goethe often spoke of the C:-p 
impression made on his sensitive mind by the cer- -onies 
and worship ot the Catholic Church, as may be :_en in the 
account of his travels and his notes upon his cujourn in Rome. 
How beautiully, for instance, he describes his journey to 
Einsiedein, where he met pilgrims walking in procession, 
chanting and praying. ‘‘ We saluted them as they passed by: 
“they filled these lonely hilis with life and animation, and gave 
“it all a singular and characteristic charm; we felt spon- 
“taneously moved to join our voices with theirs in this pious 
“concert. We were drawn into the living current as it moved 
“along the road we ourselves intended to take, and which 
“ became all the more easy and pleasant. ‘The practices of the 
‘Roman Church are most important and imposing to a 


THE CHURCH HOLY. 325 


‘‘Protestant, who only looks at their inward cause from which 
“they spring, and by which they are transmitted from generation 
“to generation, without considering, for the moment, the out- 
“ward forms, the tree, the branches, the leaves, its bark and 
‘roots. The root lies deep in human nature.”? 

Protestant worship, Goethe thinks, is too bare and empty. 
In examining it in detail, one finds that Protestants have too 
few Sacraments, nay they have but one in which the individual 
man takes any active part, the Lord’s Supper. And yet the 
Sacraments, he says, occupy the highest place in religion. They 
are sensible signs of an extraordinary favour and divine grace. 
At the Lord’s Supper earthly lips are meant to receive a divine 
Being in a bodily form; and under the guise of earthly food, 
to partake of heavenly nourishment. Such is the meaning in 
all the Christian Churches. But such a Sacrament, he proceeds, 
cannot starid alone. No Cbristian could relish it with true 
joy, unless he were filled with the sense of the symbolical or 
sacramental, and unless that sense were constantly nourished in 
him. ‘‘ He must be accustomed to view the inward religion of 
“‘the heart and that of the visible Church as ove, as the great 
“and universal Sacrament that again resolves itself into many 
“others, and communicates to them its holy, indestructible and 
“everlasting character.” 

Goethe then draws a poetical and highly coloured picture of 
the organism of the Sacraments in the Catholic Church, by 
deftly describing the analogy between natural life and the 
spiritual needs of the human heart: ‘‘The Protestant service 
“has too little fitness and consistency to be able to hold the 
“congregation together ; hence it easily happens that members 
“secede from it, and either forta little congregations of their 
‘own, or, without ecclesiastical connexion, quietly carry on 
“their citizen-life side by side. Thus for a considerable time 
‘complaints were made that the Church-goers were diminishing 
“from year to year, and just in the same ratio, the persons 


7 Aus meinem Leben. Sammt. Werke. Hullgart 1868. xii. 248. 


324 THE CHURCH HOLY. 


* who partook of the Lord’s Supper. With respect to both, but 
“especially the latter, the cause lies close at hand; but who 
“dares to speak it out? We will make the attempt, 

“Tn moral and religious, as well as in physical and civil 
“matters, man does not like to do anything on the spur of 
“the moment ; he needs a sequence from which results habit ; 
*‘what he is to love and perform, he cannot represent to himself 
‘as single or isolated, and if he is to repeat anything willingly, 
“it must not have become strange to him. If the Protestant 
‘‘worship lacks fulness in general, so let it be investigated in 
“detail, and it will be found that the Protestant has too few 
‘* Sacraments, nay, indeed, he has only one in which he himself 
“is an actor,—the Lord’s Supper; for baptism he sees only 
“when it is performed on others, and is not greatly edified 
“by it. The Sacraments are the highest part of religion, the 
‘symbols to our senses of an extraordinary divine favour and 
“grace. In the Lord’s Supper earthly lips are to receive a 
“divine Being embodied, and partake of an heavenly, under 
“the form of an earthly, nourishment. This sense is just the 
“same in all Christian Churches; whether the Sacrament is 
“taken with more or less submission to the mystery, with more 
“or Jess accommodation as to that which is intelligible; it 
“always remains a great holy thing, which in reality takes the 


‘place of the possible or impossible, the place of that which — 


‘man can neither attain nor do without. But sucha Sacrament 
“should not stand alone; no Christian can partake of it with 
“the true joy for which it is given, if the symbolical or sacra- 
“mental sense is not fostered within him. He must be 
“accustomed to regard the inner religion of the heart and 
“that of the external Church as perfectly one, as the great 
“universal Sacrament, which again divides itself into so 
“many others, and communicates to these parts its holiness, 
*“‘indestructibleness and eternity. 

“Here a youthful pair give their hands to one another, not 
“for a passing salutation, nor for the dance; the priest 


THE CHURCH HOLY. 325 


“pronounces his blessing upon them, and the bond is 
“jndissoluble. It is not iong before this wedded pair bring a 
likeness to the threshold of the altar; it is purified with holy 
‘water, and so incorporated into the Church, that it cannot 
‘forfeit this benefit but through the most monstrous apostasy, 
“The child in the course of life practises himself in earthly 
“things of his own accord, in heavenly things he must be 
instructed. Does it prove, on examination, that this has been 
“fully done, he is now received into the bosom of the Church 
‘a5 an actual citizen, as a true and voluntary professor, not 
« without outward tokens of the weightiness of this act. Now 
is he first decidedly a Christian, now for the first time he 
“knows his advantages, and also his duties. But, in the 
“ meanwhile, much that is strange has happened to him as a 
“man; through instruction and affliction he has come to know 
“ how ciitical appears the state of his inner self, and there will 
“constantly be a question of doctrines and of transgressions ; 
“but punishment shall no longer take place. For here, in the 
“infinite confusion in which he must entangle himself, amid the 
“ conflict of natural and religious claims, an admirable expedient 
“is given him, in confiding his deeds and misdeeds, his 
“infirmities and doubts, to a worthy man, appoired expressly 
“for that purpose, who knows how to calm, to warn, to 
“strengthen him, to chasten him likewise by symbolical 
“ punishments, and at last by a complete washing away of his 
“ouilt, to render him happy and to give him back, pure and 
“cleansed, the tablet of his manhood. Thus prepared and 
“ purely calmed to rest by several sacramental acts, which, on 
“closer examination, branch forth again into minuter sacra- 
‘ mental traits, he kneels down to receive the Host; and that 
“the mystery of this high act may be still enhanced, he sees the 
“chalice only in the distance; it is no common eating or 
“ drinking tnat satisfies; it isa heavenly feast which makes him 
“thirst after heavenly drink. Yet let not the youtn believe 
“that this is all he has to do; let not even the man believe it 


326 THE CHURCH HOLY. 


‘In earthly relations we are at last accustomed to depend on 
“ourselves, and even then, knowledge, understanding and 
“character will not always suffice; in heavenly things, on the 
“contrary, we have never finished learning. The higher feeling 
“within us which often finds itself not even truly at home, 1s, 
“besides, oppressed by so much from without, that our own 
‘“‘power hardly administers all that is necessary for counsel, 
“consolation and help. But to this end, that remedy. is 
“instituted for our whole life, and an intelligent, pious man is 
‘continually waiting to show the right way to the wanderers, 
“and to relieve the distressed. 

‘** And what has been so well tried through the whole life, is 
“now to show forth all its healing power with tenfold activity at 
“the gate of death. According to a trustful custom, incu’cated 
*‘from youth upwards, the dying man receives with fervour those 
‘‘symbolical, significant assurances, and then, when_ every 
‘earthly warranty fa'ls, he is answered by a heavenly one, of.a 
‘blessed existence for all eternity. He feels himself perfectly 
“convinced that neither a hostile element, nor a malignant 
‘spirit, can hinder him from clothing himself with a glorified 
“body, so that, in immediate relation with the Godhead, he 
‘may partake of the boundless happiness which flows forth from 
“Him. Then in conclusion, that the whole may be made holy, 
“the feet also are annointed and blessed ‘hey are to feel, 
“even in the event of possible recovery, a repugnance to 
“touching this earthly, hard, impenetrable soil. A wonderful 
““nimbleness is to be imparted to them, by which they spurn 
“from under them the clod of earth which hitherto attracted 
‘them. And so through a brilliant circle of equally holy acts, 
“the beauty of which we have only briefly hinted at, the cradle 
‘fand the grave, however far asunder they may chance to be, 
“are bound in one continuous circle. 

© But all these spiritual wonders spring not, like other fruits, 
“from the natural soil where they can neither be sown, nor 
“planted, nor cherished. We must supplicate for them from 


THE CHURCH HOLY. 327 


another region, a thing which cannot be done by all persons, 
“nor at alltimes. Here we meet the highest of these symbols, 
“ derived from pious tradition,’ We are told that one man can 
“be more favoured, blessed, and sanctified from above than 
“another. But that this may not appear as a natural gift, this 
“oreat boon, bound up with a heavy duty, must be commu- 
“ nicated to others by one autherized person , and the greatest 
“oood that a man can attain, without his having to obtatn it 
“by his own wrestling or grasping, must be preserved and 
“perpetuated on earth by spiritual heirship. In the very 
‘ ordination of the priest, is comprehended all that is necessary 
“for the effectual solemnizing of those holy acts, by which the 
“multitude receive grace, without any other activity being 
“needful on their part, than that of faith and implicit 
“confidence. And thus the priest steps forth in the line of his 
“predecessors and successors, in the circle of those anointed 
“with him, representing the highest source of blessings, so much 
“the more glufiuusly, as it is not he, the priest whom we 
‘reverence, but his office; it is not his nod to which we bow 
“the knee, but the blessin, which he imparts, and which seems 
“the more holy, and to come the more immediately from 
“heaven, because the earthly instrument cannot at all weaken 
“ or invalidate it by its own sinful, nay, wicked nature. 
‘* How is this truly spiritual connexion shattered to pieces in 
“ Protestantism, by part of the above-mentioned symbols being 
‘declared apocryphal, and only a few canonical! And how, 
*“ by their indifference to one of these, will they prepare us for 
“the hign dignity of the others?” ® 
8. It will be readily admitted that the sanctification of man’s 
whole life from his cradle to the grave, and the variety of ways 
in which outward worship is interlaced with the religious emo- 
tions of the heart, must exercise a powerful influence on the 
‘moral life. The behever is brought into quite a different 
atmosphere, and cannot but feel that his conversation is not on 


® The Auto-Liography of Goethe, Bohn’s Transl. vol. I. p. 245-2436 


328 THE CHURCH HOLY, 


earth, but in heaven, where Christ sits at the Father’s right 
hand. Again, the consciousness of belonging to the one great 
and holy family of God, which in every place on earth invokes 
the holy name of Jesus, offers a holy sacrifice, receives holy 
sacraments, and offers prayers for one another, cannot fail to 
move and melt the most icy heart. Even apart’ from the 
countless graces given by the sacraments to raise the courage 
of the struggling, to comfort and refresh the sorrowful, to arm 
the sick with patience, this unity and community of worship 
and life alone is calculated to inspire Catholics with ever fresh 
enthusiasm, Indeed, the early Fathers frequently mention that 
the Christians were wont te bless and sanctify everything,— 
meat and drink, labours and repose, exits and entrances—by 
the sign of the Cross, The perfume of the sanctuary and altar 
was carried away by them, and it penetrated into daily life. 
The whole life was consecrated to the Redeemer, and became, 
as it were, a continued divine service, | 

The Christian life, then, was to be a holy life. In the holy 
conversation of her children the sanctity of the Church would 
display and reflect itself in an especial manner. The tree would 
make itself known by its fruits. The means of grace were both 
a means, an incentive, and an obligation to practise holiness ; 
ner was it possible that they should remain unproductive. Our 
Lord requires His disciples to be perfect as their heavenly 
Father is perfect. The Epistles are full of admonitions to the 
“saints” to live in a manner Warthy of their calling. They 
should now give their members to serve justice unto sanctifica- 
tion (Rom. vi. 19), and offer their bodies a living sacrifice, holy 
and weill-pleasing to God. (Rom. xu. 1. 2). ‘They should now 
conduct themselves as obedient children, no more conformed 
to the former desires of ignorance, but according to Him who 
is holy, who hath called them to be holy in their conversation; 
“Yor it is written: You shail be holy, because I am holy,” 
(I Pet. 1. 14-16). Christ hath chosen us that we may be holy 
aud unspoted before Lim in charity, (Iiphes. 1, 4), 


THE CHURCH HOLY. 329 


9. The Fathers enjoined the same duties on the faithful, 
and they have left it on record that their appeals for holiness of 
life were in great measure responded to. Here we need only 
repeat what has been already said on the wonderful effects 
wrought by Christianity. The Apologists held up before the 
heathen glowing descriptions of the virtues practised by 
Christians. Here we will give only a few samples, trusting 
thereby to stimulate the appetite for more.? ‘Tatian crowds 
a grea. deal into a small space. ‘Ambition is not my friend 5 
‘riches I seek not, preferment I care not for, luxury I detest ; 
“ T will not dive into the sea to satisfy insatiable greed. I fight 
“nat for laurel wreaths of victory. From vain glory Iam free. 
“ Dea h I despise, and I am above all ailments. No trouble is 
“onawing at my Spirit. If Lam a slave, I endure slavery; iv I 
‘ama free man, I do not brag about my high birth.” Any- 
one, says Minutius Felix, “who compares us Christians with 
“you (heathen), will find us very much hetter than you, 
‘although some of us may be found wanting. You, for 
“instance, forbid adultery and commit it; you punish criminal 
“deeds; with us it is a sin so much as to think of anything 
“criminal. You dread those cosnizant of your evil deeds, we 
“dread nothing but conscience, without which we cannot be 
“accomplices. —Lastly, from your ranks the state prisons: are 
“fled. There is no Christian here unless he be an apostate, 
“or imprisoned for the sake of his religion.” ‘ We consider it 
“far nobler to despise earthly treasures than to possess them. 
“ Our first desire 1s to be guiltless ; we pray for perseverance; We 
“had rather be virtuous than extravagant. ‘That we feel and 
“ suffer bodily infirmities 1s not a punishment, rather it burdens 
“us; for power is made perfect in infirmity, and misfortune is 
“often a school for virtue.” “Wat a beautiful sight it is when 
“a Cristian wrestles with pain, and holds his own against 


‘‘menaces, and death sentences, and the rack; when he stands 


g See Christian Apology. vol. ii. chap. ix. Ignat., Ad Ephes, c. 4 IAren. ii. 23-4. 
Tertull., Ad Ux. ii. 8. Orig., De inéarn. Cc. 31. 48, 51: 


(330 THE CHURCH HOLY, 


“calm and unconcerned, and all the excitement and bustle 
“attendant on bis execution; when he despises and ridicules 
“fear of the executioner; when he sets greater store by his 
“Jiberty than on kings and princes, and yields to God alone to 
“‘whom he belongs; when in’ the hour of bis triumph and 
“victory he playfully laughs at the judge who sentenced him 
to death.10 

The Christian poets, likewise, have borne witness to the 
holiness of the Church, as may be seen from the poems of 
Prudentius, or the hymns in the Liturgy or office. Among 
the Syrian poems translated by Bickell is one on the « Sanctity 
“of the Church,” which beautifully describes its different 
phases.!!_ Addressing God, it says: “ Everywhere thou seest 
“monasteries, peopled with the perfect. There are hermits 
“living in caves, and the desert teems with holy penitents. 
“There are monks on the mountains, and sainted heroes on 
“islands. Houses resound with thy praises, O Lord! and 
“a hymn ascends to thee from the fields. Cities obey thy 
teaching, and princes stand in fear of thy judgments. Nav, 
“dread of thy wrath hath seized sinners and made them chaste. 
“The Persian believes thy doctrine, and the Assyrian has 
“bowed down before thy envoys. Lo! Thomas teaches in 
“India, and Peter preaches to the Romans. Queens love thee, 
“fand kings are subject to thy cross. Thy most sacred flesh 
“and blood gives life to thy bride, the Church. Even infants 
“sing thy hymns, and women thy psalms. The whole world 
“keeps festivals in thy honour, to appease thee.” 

This, surely, furnishes proof for the holiness of the Church. 
Or is it, perhaps, possible to separate the holiness of the faithful 
from that of the Church? The Fathers did not think SO, 
and they raised their voice in protest when heretics resorted 
to this strategy. ‘he Church, they say, is the fount whence 
sanctity flows to the faithful ; heresy, by attacking the Church’s 


to Orat. adv. Graec. c. 11. M. Felix, Octav. c. 35-37. 
11 Ausgewithile Schriften der Syrishcheu “irchenviter. Kempten, 1874, p- 415. 


Age yee eee 


THE CHURCH HOLY. 331 


unity, also sets the knife to her sanctity. Heresy is responsible 
for the increase of wickedness among Christians, and is hastening 
on the end of the world.!? Hence the saintly life led by 
the early Christians is a proof of the sanctity of the Catholic 
Church. He who is not in her has no part in the Holy Spirit, 
is not suckled at his mother’s breasts unto ife; and draws not 
from the fountain which streams forth from the body of Christ. 
He drinks impure water from muddy cisterns, and perishes.’ 

1o. Another aspect of Christian life will lead us to the 
same conclusion. Viewed frozm its outward and practical side, 
the Christian religion is a great renunciation of the world and 
its pleasures. Prayer, fasting and almsdeeds, done for love of 
God and our neighbour, are the works by which they try to gain 
a treasure in heaven, and merit eternal life. All classes of 
society embrace a life of voluntary poverty. Rich lords and 
ladies, youths and maidens give their fortunes to the poor and 
follow Jesus. Those who had previously feasted sumptuously, 
are content with a morsel of bread and a cup of water. They 
who had formerly dwelt in palaces, and were clothed in purple 
and fine linen, choose a solitary cell or a deserted cabin for 
their abode, anda hair-shirt for their vesture. They who had 
heretofore been surrounded by a numerous retinue of servants, 
ready to do their bidding at every beck and call, are now the 
servants of the poor, the sick, the prisoners and strangers. 
For Jesus Himself came not to be ministered unto, but to 
minister. And with poverty they joined self-denial and virginal 
chastity. The Fathers never tire of pointing to this noble fruit 
of the Church’s sanctity. The lily of purty has nowhere found 
genial soil, light and heat but in Christianity; and now it 
flourishes only in the Catholic Church. Christian perfection, 
which attains its zenith in the evangelical counsels, was ever 
considered the most beautiful proof for the Chnrch’s holiness. 
But the evangelical counsels exist in the Catholic Church alone; 


12 Cypr., De Unit. c 16. 
13 Iren., iii. 24, I 


332 THE CHURCH HOLY. 


and in her, according to the example set by our Lord and the 

Apostles, they have held sway from the beginning. 

tr. If it be admitted, and one can hardly see how it can be 
disputed, that Christianity; at least since the middle of the 
second century, assumed the shape of the Catholic Church, 
the many sainted Christians of antiquity are so many witnesses 
to the sanctity of the Catholic Church. Similar sanctity in the 
sects we shall seek in vain, even when they so far agree with 
the Catholic Church as to place their ideal of Christian perfec- 
tion in renouncing riches and pleasures. What man in his 
senses would compare Cerinthus, Marcion, Montanus, Arius, 
Nestorius, and such like, with Christian saints and martyrs like 
Ignatius, Justin, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, Chrysostom, Hil- 
ary, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine? What has been in past 
times, is still in the present. The line of saints continues, 
though not always in an ascending scale. 

S. Augustine, in his retractations,!* says that the Scripture text 
he had used in his work against the Donatists on baptism, to 
wit, that the Church has neither spot nor wrinkles (Ephes. v. 27), 
must not be understood to mean that the Church is actually so 
free, but that she is destined to be so when she shall appear in 
glory, For, in view of some follies and weaknesses of her 
members she has still good reason to say daily: Forgive us 
Our trespasses. ‘Thus he was not blind to the fact that there 
was a reverse of the medal in the life of the early Christians, as 
is clear, for the rest, from the history of penitential discipline, 
The Fathers are much less reticent on the darker side of the 
Church * than the Apologists. Take, for instance, the writings of 
S. Chrys stom. Still we must bear in mind that these homilies 
are of an exhortatory and oratorical character, and that he, and 
14 Retr. ii. 18. De Baft. i. 17; iii. 183 iv. 3. 4: 

* This expression, though perfectly clear in the-author, is often an occasion of serious 
misunderstanding and error, especially to Non-Catholics. The word Church may 
be used in two senses. It may mean her institutions, her Apostolate and Ministry, 
her doctrines and means of grace. These are all divine and therefore absolutely 
pertect and holy. But the word Churca may also be taken to siznity the vast 


assem) lage of her members who are saints and sinners mingled together. In this 
sense one may speak of the darker side of the Church. Tr. 


: THE CHURCH HOLY, 333 


other Fathers, in their writings, judge Christian life by a very 
high standard. Nevertheless it is undeniable that comparatively 
early, as soon as the fury of persecution had somewhat abated, 
and Christians increased in numbers, a certain laxity had found 
its way among many of the faithful, especially among the rich. 
Still more was this the case when Christianity was declared 
to be the State-religion, and many worldly advantages were 
attached to it. 

12. But wherever there are shadows, there is light. The 
line of great and holy men, who laboured zealously for the 
sanctification of their fellow-men, never failed. ‘Times out of 
number men and women vowed their fortunes to God, and 
spent their lives in ministering to the poor. J was slow work, 
indeed, to bring about the moral conversion of the corrupt 
Roman world and of semi-civilized peoples But whence would 
have come the moral force to redress wrongs, to heal wounds, 
te sow and to develop a new life, if the Catholic Church had 
not taken the task in hand, and solved it amidst the struggle 
of human passion. What sacrifices of toil and Jabour, of powet 
and fortune, of life and blood, were needed to dispel the 
darkness of error, to break the bonds of sin, to induce the 
worid to worship God in spirit and truth, and to inflame it 
with zeal for moral ideas and for holiness! 

Later on, too, there may have been many reverses, and many 
abuses. Nay, if at times it seemed as though God had 
abandoned His Church, and Christ His bride, it will always be 
found that much that was good and holy existed by the side of 
stalking vice. Even in the centuries most fraught with danger, 
there were holy men in all lands, who raised their voice in 
warning and denunciation. The old Protestant view as if there 
had been nothing but darkness in the middle ages, is now 
generally abandoned. It is admitted that even then piety and 
virtue were in the ascendant, and that Christian ideas had 
penetrated all strata of society, from the highest to the lowest. 
Tue monuments of art, suc as prints and copperplates of the 


- 


334 THE. CHURCH. HOLY. Fe 


14th and 15th centuries, testify to the deep religious sense 
that animated the people, especially the Teutonic race. So 
again the foundation of the two great mendicant orders, 
the Franciscans and Dominicans, are in themselves a living 
proof for the same fact. The monks of the West, in Mon- 
talembert’s spirited picture, the pioneers of civilization, 
afford sufficient materials for studying the services rendered 
by Holy Church, in that ‘* degenerate’’ age, towards rais- 
ing the material status and moral tone of the nations. 

13. The same, too, is true of the sixteenth century. The 
Church could not possibly have withstood the powerful as- 
saults made upon her, nor have survived the great apos- 
tacy, had she been in reality so corrupt as she was painted, 
too often, indeed, by men who are not ranked with the 
saints, and who did not leave her out of zeal for sanctity ! 
Was it a sincerely conscientious scruple that made Henry 
VIII. leave the Catholic Church and become a cruel tyrant 
both to his unlawfully wedded wives and to his subjects? 
Did England grow in Christian charity, since the ‘* Virgin 
Queen”’ became the head of the Anglican Chureh? Any- 
one who reads and compares history of those days with 
preceding times, may well think twice before throwing 
stones at the Middle Ages. The many complaints made 
by the German Reformers on the unbridled licentiousness 
that prevailed everywhere, at least prove that the ‘* preach- 
ing of the Gospel’’ had not been productive of a great in- 
crease in holiness.” The emphasis laid on grace to the ex- 
clusion of all else, and the rejection of every meritorious 
work, could not but lead to extravagances. If man’s works 
are all evil, it is easy to infer that all things are lawful. 

‘Antinomism,’’ says Pfleiderer,‘‘ is harmless when joined to 

‘“ the exalted and pure notions of religion and spirituality, 
“that filled Paul and kindred spirits ; but for the vast ma- 
“jority of a Christian communion it is fraught with the 
‘greatest dangers. Such was the experience of the an- 
‘cient Church, and the Lutheran Church could also, on 
“this head, a pretty tale unfold.’’* 


t5 See Janssen, Geschichte, etc. ii. 345. 
* Pfleiderer, Urchristenthum, p. 210. 


THE. CHURCH HOLY. 335 


The history of the bigamy of Philip of Hesse, sanctioned by 
the Reformers, casts a lurid light on many of the princes whose 
hearts heaved with anxiety for the spread of the Gospel. Philip, 
whose court preacher, Melander, also had several wives, was 
thinking, in sober earnestness, of introducing bigamy into his 
territory.!6 I am not going to deny that grave abuses had 
crept into the Catholic Church in that age ; but those, who 
have so many earthen vessels in their own house, have no right 
to reproach the Church because all hers are not of pure gold. 

Anyone reading Luther’s contemptuous expressions in regard 
to his opponents, as well as to sacred persons and things, wall 
hardly feel disposed to excuse them ina “ godly man,” on the 
mere plea that the “age was rough.” Kepler, who meant to 
be an upright Lutheran, without swearing by Luther, says: 
‘What shall I say of Luther? He is a peculiar man. The 
“ motives that guide and prevail upon wise men, could never 
“induce him to be false to truth. In this he was the wisest 
“among men. But what shal I say, of his slanderous pro- 
ye clivities and his obscenity? Are these compatible with a wise 
“man? . . . . As long as passion remains within the 
“precincts of duty and follows reason, it is under God’s 
“ouidance; but where that is not the case, great minds will 
“ often expose to view great vices as weil as great virtues.” 17 

14. The choicest flower of Christian hoiiness, the religious 
life of men and women consecrated to God, the Reformers 
ruthlessly plucked up by the roots, instead of pruning it of 
accidental excrescences, and restoring it to its original perfec- 
tion. Nay more, by their doctrine of original sin aisd 
justification, they rendered all sanctity problematical. Fluman 
nature, even from the cradle, they regarded as radically bad. 
Good works they branded as useless, if not positively detri- 
mental to eternal life. And thus they laid the axe to the root 
of the tree of sanctity planted by the Apostles. “ What early 


16 Keller, ReOrmatics, p. 456. See Histor. Polit. Blatter, 1838, 101, §+ P+ 32%. 
17 Opera, edit. Frisch, v. 480. See Schuster, Johann Kepler. Graz 1856, p» 156. 


335 THE CHURCH HOLY. 


“Protestant theologians, both Lutheran and Reformed, relate 


“of the destructive effects of the doctrine of justification 
“unfolded by the Reformation, is now receiving confirmation 
“in America, where the doctrine is still preached from many a 
“pulpit. The works of American theologians contain many 
“noteworthy admissions to this effect.”18 When W. Menzel 
said that with the Reformation a new sort of barbarism inun- 
dated the Protestant courts and universities, and that only 
darkness and coarse brutality now emanated from institutions 
that were wont to send forth light and humanism, his judgment 
was declared to be warped. When Janssen, in proof thereof, 
collated the sources of information, his work was censured as 
a wilfully bungling performance. But nowadays there is a 
growing consensus of opinion that a universal decline was the 
immediate result of the Reformation (Droysen, Roscher, Meit- 
zen and others). No doubt there were evils and abuses ; 
otherwise, the Reformation would be quite inexplicible. But 
this Reformation, instead of redressing wrongs, began by 
undermining faith and authority, which are the very founda- 
tions and sources of the sanctity of the Church. 


The Catholic Church, on the contrary, in the Council of Trent, 


strove to reform the abuses, and clearly set forth and defined 
the groundwork of holiness, And the following age furnished 
the proof that this reform in head and members had opened 
anew the sources of supernatural life. Men may smile and 
ridicule her hierarchy and gorgeous ceremonial, but these are 
real incentives to Christian life. ‘The Catholic Church,” says 
an unbiassed observer, “ both in the mutual intercourse of the 
“members with one another ard with God, is so admirable, 
“great, and free, that her adherents need only smile at the 
“twofold taunt of their adversaries, namely, that they display 
‘fan almost pantheistic enthusiasm for the Church, and, more- 
“aver, sacrifice their intellectual independence. For besides 


28 Dillinger, Kirche, p. 34. Rohm, Con/essionelle Lehrgegensdze, I. g2- Hohoff, 
Die Revolution seit dem 16. Jahrhund, etc. Freiburg 1887. 


THE CHURCH HOLY. 337 


‘an illustrious hierarchy, before whom even kings tremble, 
“they (Catholics) can point to the monk’s contempt of the 
“world; and monasticism finds itself at home, not in Protes- 
“tantism, but only in the more universal bosom of the Catholic 
G@hurch,”}? 

16. Who, then, would blame a Catholic if he speaks with 
a certain pride of the Church’s holiness? The Church is 
always holy, though many of her members have been, and are 
still, unholy. The words used by Apologists are not all rhetoric : 
‘The Church as instituted by Christ has never erred; never 
“became wicked, never lost her strength ; for that strength is 
“ ever there, even though it be not always equally conspicuous.” ° 
Unless the Church had in her the indestructible force of truth 
and sanctity which may be somewhat obscured, but never 
suppressed, by the ungodliness of individual members or 
even pastors, she could never have ridden safely above wild 
squalls and storms, nor emerged from all her struggles trium- 
phant. * Beth Church and Christianity would have disappeared 
from the face of the world. The sects of the Middle Ages 
were as impotent as ancient heretics to save either; being 
destitute of divine authority and power, they have no consistency, 
and are swept away by other sects in turn. The Augsburg 
Confession believes in one, holy Church, existing and enduring 
for alltime. ‘his, surely, must mean that the Church, befove 
the Reformation, was the one hcly Church, Should she have 
ceased for one moment to be thse 

17. BelJlarmine, in rejecting all definitions of the Church 
which base membership on merely internal conditions, and thus 
render the Church invisible! does not mean to surrender the 
Church’s note of sanctity, but only to give greater prominence 
to the outward marks of membership. ‘“ We believe that all 


19 Teichmiiller, Religtonsphilcesophie, p. 424. 

zo Mohler, p. 352. Dollinger, Christenthunt, p. 222. Kirche, p. XXiv. 

BI ili. 3, 2. 

# Even the worst epochs of the Church seem to be distinguished by the great number 
of saints. ‘Vhink of the 16th century! Tr. 


N 


338 i THE CHURCH HOLY. 


“virtues are to be found in the Church: faith, hope, charity, 
“and the rest. But to belong in any way to the true Church, 
“spoken of in Scripture, no inward virtue whatever but only 
“external profession of faith and communion of sacraments are 
“necessary.” In order, however, to make it quite clear that he 
does not make the Church consist merely of externals, he 
straightway uses S. Augustine’s simile of the living body, of the 
body and soul of the Church. 

18. Figures and statistics, it need hardly be said, are not 
available in this sphere of moral and especially supernatural 
virtue ; for the simple reason that many good actions, nay the 
very best, are mostly hidden from view. The works of 
Christian charity in tending the sick and the poor may, indeed, 
be compu‘ed, in so far as they are made public. But the 
motives and circumstances which inspire them and constitute 
their chief value, remain hidden. Still, even apart from the 
motives, and considering only the deeds of charity, the Catholic 
Church has nothing to fear from a comparison... Here, again, 
it is the religious orders which, above all, by their spirit of 
self-sacrifice, furnish the highest proof of charity to one’s 
neighbour, As this subject is one of frequent discussion in 
our own days, it may be well to quote the words of two 
Protestant authorities. President von Gerlach thus writes: 
“Day by day we see how slight, in comparison with the 
“Catholic Church, is the influence wielded by the Evangelical 
‘Church, in enlightening and sanctifying the people in the 
‘mass and the majority of its members. The reason is not 
“far to seek.” Privy Councillor Eilers says: “I have studied 
“the connection subsisting between the Christian life of a 
‘“Catholic people, and the usages and institutions of the Catholie 
“Church, and I must reluctantly confess that there is more 
“Christianity in the present Catholic Church than in the 
“present Evangelical Church.” I consider it a well-established 
“fact that the Evangelical clergy, in self-sacrificing parochial 


22 Gerlach, Actensticke etc. Berlin 1856, iii, 423. Eilers, Meine Wanderungen durchs 
deben. Leipzig 1857, ii. 266. See Dillinger, Kirche, p. 489¢ 


THE CHURCH HOLY. 339 


“work, are generally far behind the Catholic.” 

1g. With crime, however, the case would seem to be 
different, and statistics might claim their full rights, because 
the secrecy of crime rests on a wholly different basis. But 
any one, who has studied statistical tables knows that figures, 
though not defective, may yet be deceptive. What assurance 
have we that any given statistics are exhaustive? or again, 
that the grouping is correct, or that it justifies more than quite 
general conclusions, or that many other factors have not to 
be taken into account, such as external circumstances of 
country, climate, political and social conditions, and such like ? 
Criminal statistics, therefore, scarcely enable us to go half way 
in forming a correct estimate of the influences of the Church 
on morality. The attempt to show from these tables that 
certain and especially smaller districts have a higher standard 
of morality, is but a sham manceuvre, prompted by sectarian 
motives, against which statisticians themselves are warning us. 
If, on the strength of criminal statistics, one were to maintain 
that crimes must not be laid to the charge of free will, but 
are in general dependent on essentially permanent causes, 
would these manipulators of figures allow that every murderer 
is a madman? 

20. Asa further proof of the Church’s sanctity, miracles, 
which have been worked continuously in the Church, are, as a 
rule, appealed to. This proof holds good if we consider the 
main cause and object of miracles. On the one band, they 
reveal the working of the Holy Ghost ever present in the 
Church; on the other, they tend to overthrow the empire of 
Satan. God’s creatures are snatched from the power of the 
devil ; and God’s kingdom is promoted and glorified by cor- 
poral and spiritual aids. This subject has been already treated,” 
so we need here only to draw out the consequences. Critics 
may decry the “Romish craving for miracles ;”** but it is 


23. See Christian Apology, vol. ii. chap. ix. Also Bellarmine ii. 4, 14- Tournely, p- 


69, 72- 
24 Tschakext, p. 108 


340 THE CHURCH HOLY. 


impossible to simply bury in universal doubt all that the 
Fathers have attested as eyewitnesses. Nor can all the miracu- 
lous occurrences of ancient and modern times be set aside 
offhand as so much fraud and deception. After all, prayer is 
an element in every religion. But prayer supposes belief in its 
power and efficacy. Therefore, unless miracles are said to be 
impossible, there may be wonderful answers to prayers. The 
same power of the Lord that manifests itself in-prayer, is also at 
work in miracles, which are almost always accompanied by 
prayer, and accomplished with prayer and fasting. Whatever 
Protestants may think of the intercession of the Blessed Virgin 
and the Saints, they cannot deny that the divine power of 
Jesus Christ may work a miracle in answer to prayers.* 

S. Ireneeus, while warning against false miracles, bears witness 
to the existence of miracles worked by prayer in his own time. 
He says: “ Moreover, those also will be thus confuted who 
‘“betong to Simon and Carpocrates, and if there be any others 
“who are said to perform miracles—who do not perform what 
“they do either through the power of God, or in connection 
“with the truth, nor for the well-being of men, but for the sake 
“of destroying and misleading mankind, by meaas of magical 
“deceptions, and with universal deceit, thus entailing greater 
“harm than good on those who believe them, with respect 
“to the point on which they lead them astray.” “For they 
“can neither give sight to the blind, nor hearing to the deaf, 
“nor cast out devils, except such as they themselves have sent 
“into others ; if, indeed, they can do as much as this. Nor 
“can they cure the weak, or the lame, or the paralytic 


® The promises of Christ are most explicit both as to the continuity of miracles 
(Mark xvi. 18), and the universal efficacy of Christian prayer (Matth. vii. 7, 
II; xvill. 19; xxi, 22, John xiv.-xvi. I John iii-v). It is to be noticed, 
moreover, that the two are closely connected. Belief in the continuity of 
miracles is the very life and Strength of the spirit of prayer, as the absence of 
that belief is the death of prayer. Yet Strange to say, whenever the spirit of 
prayer awakens with new vigour among the Catholic people, and attains to its 
highest expression in public pilgrimages, the Protestant world is aroused to a 
very different manifestation of spirit! An earnest mind will here find matter 
for reflection. Tr. 


THE CHURCH HOLY. 341 


“ And so far are they from being able to raise the dead, as 
“the Lord raised them, and the Apostles did by means of 
“prayer, and as has been frequently done in the brotherhood 
“on account of some necessity—tie entire Church in that 
“ particular locality entreating with much fasting and prayer, the 
“spirit of the dead man has returned, and be has been bestowed 
“in answer to the prayers of the saints.”** Again, he continues $ 
“ Wiserefore, also, those who are in truth His disciples, receiving 
“orace from Him, do in His name perform (miracles), so as 
“to promote the welfare of other men, according to the gift 
“which each one has received from Him. For some do certainly 
“and truly drive out devils, so that those wao have thus been 
“cleansed from evil spirits, frequently both believe and join 
“themselves to the Church. Others have foreknowledge ct 
“things to come: they see visions, and utter prophetic expres- 
“sions. Others still, heal the sick by laying their hands upon 
“them, and they are made whole. Yea, moreover, as I have 
“said, the dead even have been raised up, and remained among 
“us for many years. And what shall I more say? It ts not 
“possible to name the number of the gifts which the Church, 
i [scattered ] throughout the whole world, has received from 
“God, in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under 
“Pon‘ius Pilate, and which she exerts day by day for the 
“benefit of the Gentiles, neither practising deception upon any, 
“nor taking any reward from them. For as she has received 
“freely from Ged, freely also does she minister.” 6 

Carlstadt, says Luther, is doing “his work without a vocation, 
“or, if he were acting fror att inward cal! of God,” he would 
pave to “prove it by miracles.” “ For God changes not the 
“old order for a new one, unless he works (and accompanies 
“the change with) great signs. Hence no one is to be believed 
“when he appeals to his own spirit and inmost feelings, and 
“ outwardly raves against God’s common order.”*7 But to the 
as Adv. Haer. ii. 31, 2. 33 32) 3 4 (Clarke's Tr.) 


26 Ibid. v. 6. 1 Cf. ii. 23. 43 ill. 26, 5+ 
#7 Janssen, ii. 37% 


342 THE CHURCH HOLY, 


old order, according to universal belief, belonged miracles, 
as proof of the Spirit of God. 

21. The aim and end of the Church is man’s sanctification. 
This end is attained more or Jess proximately, according to the 
measure in which individuals co-operate with grace. The 
Church on earth is a Church militant ; but sanctity can never 
wholly fail in her. Eternal life must be begun here in faith and 
charity, if it is to be continued in the world beyond; the seed 
cf resurrection must be planted in the mortal body, if it is 
to rise again in glory. Union with the God-Man receives its 
complement in heaven. Therein lies the Cnriscian’s hope in 
death ; on this rests the faith that the members of the body 
of Christ, that have found their true home, are spiritually united 
with those still sojourning on their pilgrimage. It is a great 
communion of saints. The faithful, incorporated in the body 
of Christ have community of mind and heart with God and 
His angels, and with the saints who see Gced’s face. And 
in God the saints see all who are still pilgrims in this vale 
of tears. They see their needs and dangers; they hear their 
sighs and prayers; and they supplicate with Christ for grace 
and mercy, so that the Church triumphant may grow in 
numbers, and that God’s praises may be more loudly proclaimed. 

The eight Beatitudes, which are the pivot on which the office 
for All Saints turns, show in a most striking manner the intimate 
connection between the Church militant and the Church 
triumphant. For they are as applicable to the true members 
of God’s kingdom on earth as to the saints in heaven. The 
Church both in heaven and on earth is one and the same, but 
the sorroundings are different. ‘Here, says S. Augustine, 
“the Church is imperfect, as it includes the wicked; but the 
“future Church contains none such. Now it is mortal, being 
“composed of mortal men; but then it will be immortal, as 
“none in her will die. But there are not two Churches any 
“more than there are two Christs ; for having died once, He 
“dieth now no more.”*8 All who cleave to God, and carry the 


28 Brevic. Coll. iii. 9, 16; 10, 208 


THE CHURCH HOLY. 343 


charity of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, form with God one 
community. They are the city of God, having the same living 
sacrifice and. its living temple. That portion of n,ortal men 
which will one day be joined to the immortal angels, is now 
partly on its earthly pilgrimage, and partly resting in the 
mysterious abodes of souls.*9 

The Roman Catechism speaks thus of the connection between 
the two parts of the Church: “The Church, then, consists 
“ principally of two parts, the one called the Church triumphant, 
“the other the Church militant. The Church triumphant is 
“that most glorious and happy assemblage of blessed spirits, 
“and of those who triumphed over the world, the flesh, and the 
“devil, and who, free and secure from the troubles of this life, 
“ enjoy everlasting bliss. But the Church militant is the society 
“ of all the faithful still living on earth, and is called militant 
“becauses it wages perpetual war with those implacable 
‘enemies, the world, the flesh and the devil. We are not, 
“however, hence to infer that there are two Churches; but 
“there are, as we have already said, two constituent parts of 
‘the same Church, one of whicb has gone before, and is now in 
“the possession of its heavenly country ; the other following 
“every day, until at length, united with our Saviour, it repose 
‘in endless felicity.” °° 

23.+ It will, perhaps, conduce to a clearer understanding 
of the foregoing chapter, if we add one or two remarks in 
explanation of the term “holiness.” 

Whatever, then, be the true etymology of the word “holy ”— 
sanctus, sacer, &yws, dov0s, kodesh—certain it is that the idea 
which underlies the word is, in its primary import, applied 
exclusively to God. Nothing else is holy but by reason of 
some special connection and contact with Him. Thus, tne 
revealed word of God, and the charismata, or supernatural gifts 
of power and grace, are holy by the very character of their 


29 Aug. De Civ. Dez. xil. 19 
30 Cat. Rout. i. 10, 5 


344 THE CHURCH HOLY, 


origin ; other things, that once were not considered holy, being 
specially dedicated and consecrated to the divine honour and 
service, are, by that destination and purpose rendered holy. 
Hence all holiness in the creature redounds to the holiness 
of God ; and if we would seek the true meaning of the term, 
we must find its interpretation in Him. 

Holiness is ascribed to God in @ twofold sense. It may 
denote either a moral attribute or, what Theologians call a 
pnysical attribute. We shall begin with the latter. The Divine 
Being is so pure and perfect, so exalted and beautiful, so 
majestic and unapproaclable that everything else is by com- 
parison empty, vile, impure, contemptible. To express this 
wide and awful contrast we call God a Sacred Being. All else 
is profane. But when creatures, pvofane in themselves, are 
touched by the hand of God, or overshadowed by His Divine 
presence, or assumed to a special union with Him, or made the 
instruments of His sanctifying word and grace, or set apart for 
His worship and service, they too become holy, in a physical 
and generic sense. We thus account holy the prophets and 
messengers of God, bishops and priests, the burning bush, 
the ark, the temple, Mary, the Virgin-Mother of our Lord, and, 
above all, the most sacred humanity of Jesus Christ. They are 
holy by an overflow, as it were, of the holiness of God. 

But God is holy with a moral holiness also. For, as a 
personal Being, He is, in mind and will, absolutely just and 
righteous. He cannot err; He cannot sin, This complete and 
perfect truthfulness, this absolute moral goodness, is holiness. 
Its roots are found in the physical attributes of God. Owing to 
His infinitely perfect knowledge, and supreme unwavering love 
of what is right and just, God is found to be, in the moral 
sense of the words, Sancéxs Sanctorum. Now creatures that 
are intelligent and free may be more or less conformed to the 
mind and will of God; and according to the measure of their 
conformity they are more or less holy in the specific and moral 
sense of the word, | 


he 
eS 7 


THE CHURCH HOLY. 345 


This conformity may be a merely natural excellence, arising 
feom a natural knowledge cf the truth and a natural love of the 
good. However, it would not be called holiness unless it had 
been cultivated, so to speak, under the eye of God, and with a 
direct purpose of obeying Him, and of discharging a duty 
towards Him as the Presertber of moral conduct, the Lawgiver 
and Judge over all creatures. Moreover, even on this supposi- 
tion, the holiness would be nothing more than mere natural 
holiness. 

We say ‘mere natural holiness,’ because there is a form of 
holiness not natural, but supernatural—a conformity with the 
mind and will of God, that is based.upon a participation in the 
direct and secret knowledge of God by means of revelation and 
the infused gift of faith, anda participation in God’s perfect love 
by means of sanctifying grace and the infused virtue of super- 
natural charity. By these gifts the soul of man is raised above 
its natural sphere and condition, it is set in an exalted state of 
resemblance to: God in which it lives a life truly divine, and is 
graced with the priceless dignity of divine sonship. It is ‘“‘dorn 
“again” of God. Such supernatural moral goodness, quite 
unitta’nable by purely human effort, and conveyed by an 
altogether free gift of God, is emphatically and strictly called 
holiness. To distinguish it from physical holiness, this latter is 
more properly termed sacredness. 

Since the root and basis of holiness in the creature must be 
referred to sanctifying grace, without a clear idea of grace our 
knowledge of holiness will be vague and misty ; yet, outside the 
Catholic Church, the true import of gzace is almost entirely 
unknown. Now it is precisely this grace, with its unlimited 
capacity of increase, that is bestowed and nourished through the 
ministry of the Church: her hierarchy and doctrine, her 
sacraments and liturgy, directly tend to the one purpose of 
resto.ing and increasing in the souls of men the great and 
precious gift of God by which they are made partakers of the 
divine nature and are moulded in the divine image—that 


346 THE CHURCH HOLY. 


wondrous gift once bestowed on our first parents, and by them 
lost, but won back by the passion and death of God’s Consub- 
stantial Son, the Word made flesh. 

It is now, we trust, quite plain, that the Church must be 
considered holy with a twofold holiness. She is sacred in her 
divine origin; in her sacraments and hierarchy, which are the 
organs of the Holy Ghosi; in her preaching, as the mouthpiece 
of God, the deep things of the Spirit which have been revealed 
to her; in her closeness to the indwelling God, who ever guides 
and assists her. She is Ao/y in the supernatural life of her 
children, in the outpouring of grace, in the divinely communi- 
cated gifts of faith and hope and charity, in the precious fruits 
of heavenly viitue. She is the house and temple of God; her 
sons are the sons of the Most High. 

Just as the soul of man is, in itself, invisible, so, of course, the 
Church’s attribute of holiness is, in its essence, an invisible 
attribute ; yet, for all that, her holiness is not without visible 
tokens of its inward presence. Zucessu patuit Dea. Like our 
Lord on the mount, the Church has her transfiguration. The 
brightness of her beauty shines through the veil, and reveals 
itself in the wonderful list of her saints, and in her undoubted 
influence upon the moral regeneration of the world. After all, 
however, her one great mark of holiness—a mark altogether 
peculiar to herself—may be found in her ministry of recon- 
ciliation, her Sacrament of Penance, her attitude towards 
sinners and unquestionable influence over them. To those in 
darkness, she brings light; to the erring, rest; to the despairing, 
hope and peace. Now it is precisely this Sacrament of Penance 
and reconciliation that false Churches first of all cast away, 


a ae 


CHAPTER XL 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 


1.* Grace and Truth are the two great gifts which the 
incarnate Son of God brought down from heaven to fallen man. 
‘And the Word [Truth] was made flesh and dwelt among us 
meen os uk Ci cue andstriths, .. <) uk? sel UC Omir bs 
“fulness we have all received, and grace for grace.” John. 1. 
14. 16). He wished to be to all the way, the truth, and the 
life. (John xiv. 6), For this He was born, and for this He 
came into the world, that He might give testimony to the 
truth. Everyone that is of the truth, heareth His voice. (John 
XVII. 37). Jesus accomplished the work that the Father gave 
Him to do. He is in the faithful, and the Father is in Him, 
that all may be made one; “and that the world may know 
“that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as tnou hast 
‘also loved me.” (John xvii. 23). 

The vital question which now arises, and which intimately 
concerns every man.in this world is, how is Christ’s truth and 
grace to reach the individual soul? How is faith, the beginning 
and root of the new life of grace, to be acquired aad retained 
by each believer? This question has been already answered in 
the preceding chapters. Christ has established a Church on 
earth, a true and perfect society with all its essential organic 
elements, a veritable kingdom of truth and grace. The Saw of 
truth and grace is its vital principle. But all law ina society 
springs from authority which for this reason is called the soul 


348 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, 


of society. If, then, the premisses are true, there can be no 
doubt that a living and divinely constituted authority is the 
immediate source from which divine truth and grace flow upon 
- each individual soul, It is, therefore, by the principle of authority, 
that is, by tradition, that believers are made. Nevertheless, 
as the question is a fundamental one, we deem it nécessary to 
examine it in a special chapter, and to thoroughly sift the 
evidence from Scripture and the records of antiquity. 


“, IN THE TIME OF CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES. 


2.* It is self-evident that the first thing to be considered in 
this question, is Christ’s own example and method of teaching, 
and the measures He took for assuring the continuance of the 
teaching He had begun. He Himself was the first to commence 
the great edifice He intended to rear. He, the Master-builder, 
hewed and shaped the first stones, and placed them one by one 
upon the chief corner-stone; and we may naturally presume 
that the edifice was to be built in accordance with His plan. 
His first care was to make good His authority over those 
whom He intended to teach. That He was sent by God, nay, 
that He is God Himself, must be the first article of their creed. 
This was the great central point towards which His doctrine 
and miracles converged. By miracles He gained authority, 
and by authority faith, says Tertullian, This is plainly written 
on the face of the Gospels. His next step was to select from 
the believers twelve men, to be His ‘special friends and 
pupils, and to take part in His own missionary labours. They 
were to be at once His disciples, and teachers under Him. 
For this purpose He endowed them with credentials like 
His own, namely, the gift of miracles. These twelve He 
called Apostles, that is to say, men sezf by Him—Christ’s 
messengers. ‘To them He imparted the mysteries of the king- 
dom of God. They were to continue His work. What He had 
preached within the narrow boundaries of Palestine they were 
to preach to all nations. What He had taught them confiden- 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 349 


tially and in secret, they were to preach from the house-tops ; 
for there is nothing hidden that shall not be revealed. ‘To 
ensure their preaching the Gospel, they received authority 
and power from above: Authority from Christ, power and 
ability from the Holy Ghost. Thus, not only their calling, duty, 
or office, but the very mode and manner of carrying it out, 
was clearly fixed. As Jesus had taught them by His personal 
authority and living voice, so were they to teach others by the 
personal authority they had received from Him, and by their 
infallible living voice. As He was sent by the Iather, so were 
they sent by Him, to be the organs of truth and grace to man- 
kind. ‘All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 
‘Going, therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the 
“name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; 
“teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- 
*“manded you; and behold I am with you all days, even to 
“the consummation of the world.” (Matth. xxv 18-20). If 
ever there was a p.ain institution and foundation, a clear charter, 
an evident expression of the last will and testament, it is here. 
3. Jesus has left behind no writings, neither a zes«mé of 
His revelat.on, nor instructions for the use of the Apostles. 
The Guspel, the glad tidings, He preached by word of mouth. 
He “went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and 
“preaching the Gospel of the kingdom.” (Matth. Iv. 23). If 
all the phrases used in the Gospels, such as the Teaching, the 
Word, the Preaching, the good Tidings, the Commandments of 
Jesus, were put together; and if, moreover, a collection were 
made of the verbs. used to designate the preaching of the 
Gospel (e.g. preaching, speaking, bearing witness, hearing, 
receiving, keeping, &c.), they would form a striking body of 
evidence as to the method Jesus adopted in teaching, and 
would at the same time furnish a telling picture of the Master, 
surrounded by disciples hanging on His every word, and of 
people listening with breathless attention. But there is not the 
faintest allusion to written teaching. Not, indeed, that Christ 


350 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 


was unaware of that method, or did not appreciate its im- 
portance for religious truth. For He knew the Scriptures ; 
He appealed to what was written—to Moses and the Proph- 
ets ; and He bade men search the Scriptures to learn what 
was there foretold about Christ. 

This fact is so clear and patent, that it has only to be 
stated. Nor need we discuss in detail the question why 
Jesus did not originally choose writing as the medium for 
propagating His doctrine.’ Neither the defective educa- 
tion of the disciples, nor the possibility of falsification, nor 
regard for heathen tribunals, nor the Jewish prohibition to 
teach except by word of mouth, nor again, the expectation 
that the Parousia was near at hand, nor yet chance, can be 
regarded asasufficient reason. For the present it is enough 
to point out that in the lifetime of Jesus there was no need 
whatever for resorting to writing. His first and direct pur- 
pose was to gain access to the hearts and wills of His hear- 
ers, to awaken them to repentance, to gather round Him a 
living and vigorous community in which His word would 
be received and in due time bear fruit under Elis own fos- 
tering care. 

Jesus, by His preaching, aimed at planting a new life, and 
by degrees leading His disciples to a higher knowledge and 
a new order of things. Truth and life were to go hand in 
hand, as they had always done, especially in ancient time. 
He taught as one having power, and not as the Scribes and 
Pharisees ; He carried the hearts of His hearers along with 
Him, and filled His disciples with enthusiasm for His 
divine teaching and Messianic work. Then, again, a long 
- time was needed to confirm and purify their faith, and 
to give them an insight into mysteries. And how could 
this end have been secured by writing? Our Lord’s 
hearers, and the disciples, too, would have understood 
His writings as little as they understood the Old Tes- 
tament. And yet our Lord saw Himself compelled to 
speak to the people only in parables, that they may have 


x See Aberle-Schanz, Eznzleztung, p. 7. 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 35! 


eyes and see not, and ears and hear not If the disciples d'd 
not understand Jesus when He predicted His passioa and 
resurrection, how could they have grasped a written exposition 
of His doctrine? They, indeed, declared that they understood 
Him in His farewell discourse (John xvi. 29), but their sud- 
sequent behaviour shows that this confession was the expres 
sion rather of love than of solid conviction ‘Their whole being 
had to be transformed and spirituai:zed, before they coutd be 
filled and penetrated by the living light of truth Christianity 
is an inward, a personal, living relation and communication 
with God Soirit and life ar2 necessarily its foundation and 
nd writings cana impar: spirit and lif2, excep: to those who 
already pos3e3s bota 6 God gav2 no writings to the Apostles, 
Hat in their stead He promised the grace of the Hoy Spire: 
“Foc He, said Jesus, will call to your mind all thai [ have 
“said t> you * 

4 The deeper reason then. for the method adopted by 
Jesus, les in the great importance. and in tne enchraliing powes 
of the Bee word,? and of example “The living word. 

03523525 a secre:, mysterious force, and passinz from the 
ee lips to the ears of the discipies, produces a more 
“ nowerfut impression” * This power was so geneétaiiy recog 
nized, and had such far-reaching consequenc2s; 1a ancie.t 
t.mes, thac we sha'l search history ia vain for any founder of 
relizioa wnd propaga:ed his tenets by writing The sacred 
books of tn2 Hindus Pessiaas, Chinese, Egypeans and others 
are rica more recen: than the founders ef thet religions 
ee left ad writings °* W232 see here (ta Buddhism) more 

‘clearly tnaa eisewner2 tna: 1a a teachers lifetime there is 
“tality be nd need :o comm tae events of his life to writing, 
“ort enshra2 his teacn.ng iaasacred canon His presence 
was all in ali Thougni for the future, or of great renown 


e Chrys. Homil. in Match.i a 
3 S Thom. ii p at a 13 
4 Hieron. Aép ad: Fawl. 53 % 


352 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 


‘“‘in the future seldom crossed the minds of his hearers,”® 
Confucius, Lao-tse and Zoroaster were not founders of religion, 
but reformers who collected, assorted and sifted what had been 
handed down. Mohammed, indeed, was most solicitous to 
have his revelations written down ; but he ranked himself wih 
the prophets who wrote down revelations at God’s bidding. Of 
Moses, too, it may be truly said that he did not establish his 
religion, but found it already in existence. The covenant with 
Abraham was concluded, and the mark of the covenant already 
given. And Moses was commanded by God to make known 
and to write down the Law, that the Covenant might be 
renewed. 

But Jesus was more than a prophet. He was the very God 
who had spoken through the prophets, and who now appeared 
in the flesh to complete the divine revelation in person. Who 
does not feel, that writing would have been a poor substitute 
for His living and burning word! How captivating His 
discourse ! How overpowering the wisdom that revealed itself 
in the disputes with the Scribes and Pharisees! Who can 
imagine Him, so majestic and withal so simple, choosing to 
commit the words of life and truth to dead paper ? 

5. But, perhaps, it will be urged, with the Apostles the case 
was different. Would it not have been desirable that, after the 
death and resurrection of their Master, they should possess an 
exact summary of His revelation, and precise instructions to 
guide them in discharging the duties of their office? What an 
impression it would have made on their hearers, had they been 
able to produce the handwriting of God the Son Himself! Yet, 
not only did Christ not leave behind any written documents for 
the Apostles, but He expressly. and repeatedly enjoined 
speaking and preaching as the means of propagating His 
doctrine. And so well did the Apostles understand and obey 
their Master’s orders, that they considered the divine commission 
to preach by word of mouth, an indispensable cundition for 


s M. Miller, Vergleich. Religionswissenschaft, 1874. ps 27 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, 353 


Christian faith and life.6 From the Acts of the Apostles, and 
from the Epistles a goodly collection might be made of phrases 
relative to the teaching office, 

In the case of the Apostles, too, the external and the internal 
reasons already given against the use of writing, held good, 
perhaps in a still greater degree. The Apostles had to move tn 
a hostile society composed of Jews and heathens. ‘They had 
to be prepared for an outbreak of persecution at any moment. 
Then, again, for doing their work, speech was a far more 
effective instrument than writing. To found Churches and to 
convert unbelievers there is needed a stronger proot than 
a mere book, even if inspired, can offer; since this itself 
requires proof. But the Apostles had for their preaching a 
living proof, the proof and power of the Spirit, who guided their 
preaching, the proof of the gifts which were imparted by the 
Spirit to those who were baptized. Thus their word became 
spirit and life. For it was not they that spoke but the Spirit of 
God in them. The Apostles, it is true, frequently appealed to 
the Old Testament Scriptures, and drew out proofs from reason, 
but both these held a secondary place. They were for the 
purpose of supporting and explaining their preaching. Moreover. 
the Old Testament was recognized by the Jews, and its great 
age and antique wisdom could not fail to make an impression 
even on the heathen. But the proof always started from the 
new crder, from Christ’s life and work, which the Old Testa- 
ment had foreshadowed. And it gained in strength when they 
were able to show that the Messias’ person, character, and work 
had been foretold in the Old Testament. Tor thus they gave 
conclusive proof that the Spirit who spoke through the prophets 
was the very life and soul of Christianity. Reason, on the other 
hand, was called in to supply points of contact with faith, and 
to scatter prejudices that custom had ingrained in the life and 
belief of ali classes. All this was but breaking the ground, and 
preparing the soil for receiving, 


6 Rom. x. 14 seq. Ephes. iv: 7-54. 


354 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 


It belonged to the motiva credibilitatis, the preliminaries of 
faith, and preaching of the Gospel. But faith itself came from 
the Apostles, to whom was entrusted the seed of the divine 
word But it was a seed, with supernatural germinative power, 
a seed fructified by the Holy Spirit. Like a new leaven, the 
faith had to be set in a corrupt society in order to completely 
transform it. Such a process of fermentation, destined to lay 
hold of every fibre of the human heart, and to penetrate all the 
relations of life, could only be brought about by the living word 
of preachers who were endued with the Spirit of God. Life 
springs from life alone. 

6 Still more necessary was a living tradition for divine wor- 
ship, with its many details, its cycle of actions, and multitudinous 
grace-giving operations. In a remarkable passage S. Paul refers 
to what he had received from the Lord, and had delivered to 
the faithful concerning the Lord's Supper. (I Cor. x1. 23) This, 
we learn from him and the Acé¢s, formed the centre of Christian 
worship When the Apostle commends the Corinthians (I Cor. 
xt 2) because they are in all things mindful of him, and hold 
fas: to the traditions that he had handed down to them, he is 
putting in a plea for his regulations regarding the demeanour 
of women in the Church. His mudlier taceat in ecclesia has 
passed into a winged word. In like manner, he adjures the 
Thessalonians to hold fast to the traditions they had received, 
whether by word of mouth or by his Epistle (II Thessal. 1. 
15) He beseeches the Romans to mark and to avoid “ them 
“‘who cause dissensions and offences, contrary to the doctrine 
‘which you have learned,” (Rom. xvi. 17) because their 
conversation must be “ worthy of the Gospel of Christ.” (Phil. 
1.27). ‘Rooted and built up in Him and confirmed in the 
‘“faith, as also you have learned, abounding in Him in thanks- 
crete (COL Il: 7), 

7- In whatever way we explain Matth. vi. 26: “ Give not 
that which is holy to dogs ; neither cast ye your pearls before 
Swine,” it is clear, in any case, that circumspection in preaching 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, 355 


and instruction was enjoined on the “dispensers of the mys. 
terics of God.” It was their duty to guard the sacred mysteries, 
doctrinal and practical, from the profane. Hence it is but 
natural that the inner life of grace, and the pulsation of the 
Holy Spirit in the body of Christ, can nowhere be fully recog: 
nized and felt but in the Church. Externally the Apostolic 
communities were obliged to appear in the garb of Roman 
collegia, in order to secure legal protection. Therefore it 
became all the more necessary to base the inner life of the 
Church on living tradition. Were the case otherwise, would it 
not be surprising that Holy Scripture nowhere descrives exactly 
the rite of baptism? Nay that it leaves us in doubt even as to 
the form employed by the Apostles. Should we not be as- 
tonished to find that even the feast of the Holy Eucharist is 
spoken of as something known, rather than described? But 
who, at that time, would have thought such a description 
necessary, seeing that all assisted weekly, or perhaps daily? It 
would be interesting, says a Protestant writer, and would greatly 
tend to allay sectarian strife, if we knew the precise way in 
which Christ and the Apostles gave thanks over bread and 
wine.’ Nor is it less interesting to us Catholics. Since, 
however, Holy Scripture says nothing about it, or the little that 
it does say is not easily explained in a way acceptable to all, we 
hold that the Apostolic Churches, which have solemnized the 
mysteries as far back as the days of the Apostles, are the only 
recognized and competent interpreters of this solemnity. 

For this kind of worship, to which none but the initiated 
were admitted, the Greek mysteries had furnished a precedent. 
After describing the Christian celebration of the Eucharist 
Justin remarks: ‘‘The wicked demons, in imitation of this, 
‘have taught them to do the same in the mysteries of Mithra ; 
“for you know, or may learn, that bread and a chalice with 
“water is laid before him who is to be initiated.”8 Christ 


gy Herzog, Real-Encycl. fur Protest. Theologie, etc. 1. 4. 
8 Afol. i. 66. Tertull. De Pracser. Ce 4% 


356 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, 


committed to the Apostles the mysteries of the kingdon of God, 
that they might hand them on and dispense them, and make 
them fruitful unto eternal life. He instituted the Sacraments 
for the worthy, and charged the Apostles to dispense them. 
In this sense, it is true that Christ did not “hand over to the 
“Church’s keeping a fixed and unalterable deposit of revealed 
“doctrines and rules of conduct, from which she was to draw 
‘*(ready-made) articles of faith as the need arosé.”9 In place 
of a dead scheme he instituted a living organism,—one endowed 


with every principle of social and spiritual vitality; capable of - 


growth and development; adapted to all times and circumstances. 
Thus the existence and activity of Christianity were assured for 
all ages, 

8. The Apostles certainly took thought for the future. The 
rnore they were conscious of knowing only Christ and Him 
crucified, the higher grew their conception of their duty as 
witnesses to the risen Saviour, and the more zealous waxed their 
efforts to provide for the future transmission of their doctrine, and 
for the maintenance of their ordinances and institutions. Paul 
thus exhorts Timothy: ‘Hold the form of sound words which 
‘thou hast heard from me in faith, and in the love which is in 
“Christ Jesus. Keep the good deposited in trust, to thee by the 
“Holy Ghost, who dwelleth in us,” (II Tim. 1. 13; ,1 4 ees 
“that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane 
“novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so 
“called.” (I Tim. vi. 20.)!0 The Apostle is here alluding not 
merely to doctrine, but to all things appertaining to divine wor- 
ship. For the example of the Apostle both in his teaching and 
administrative capacity, was the model by which the beloved 
Timothy knew how he should walk in God’s house. The 
Apostolic precepts and exhortations, that have been already 
mentioned, show clearly that the Apostles were fully convinced 
that, by appointing pastors and teachers, they had made 
provision for the maintenance of Christian truth and grace, 


9 Hase, Polemik, p. 78. 
to See Tit. i. 9; ii. 1-15; iii. 8. 


ee ae ee ee ee ee 


"> 


Rinna. 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 357 


9. The Apostles also wrote Epistles, in which they gave further 
explanations upon certain points of doctrine, denounced abuses, 
and gave directions both for daily life and for divine worship. 
It is from them that we draw our demonstration; for by 
reason both of their character and contents, they bear out the 
point for which we are contending. Preaching nowhere began 
with Epistles. They were not the ordinary vehicle for the 
exercise of the Apostolic office, but were accessory and supple- 
mentary either to preaching or other personal work that had 
preceded. They were occasional writings, the occasion often 
being set forth in the Epistle itself, Moreover, they confine 
themselves to the topics that furnished the immediate cccasion 
for writing. When the Apostle refers to traditions learned 
“by our Epistle,” it is in an Epistle addressed to the same 
Church.!!_ Nor does the more general address in the two 
Epistles to the Corinthians militate against this view. For the 
“saints in all Achaia” were in dependence on the mother 
Church in Corinth. The contents, too, of both Epistles, 
suppose and apply to a concrete case, 

All this, however, does net prevent the Epistles being 
forwarded to other Churches to be read during divine service. 
Thus the Apostle recommends the Colossians to cause their 
Epistle to “be read also in the Church of the Laodiceans.” 
(Col. 1v. 16; See Ephes. 1, 1). But we nowhere hear of a 
community being won over to Christianity or of being con- 
stituted in this way. In no Epistle is a systematic course of 
instruction given with a view to conversion, or for missionary 
purposes. All Epistles, even the more general Catholic Iepistles, 
were addressed to communities, and deal with special matters 
that were intimately known to the writer. This is true even of 
the Epistle to the Romans which holds a unique position 
among S. Paul’s Epistles, as it was addressed to a Church not 
founded by him, and of which he had no personal knowledge. 
Nevertheless it is not an epitome of Pauline dogma. But it 


ax II Thess. ii. 14 I Cor. v. 93 IJ. Cor. ii. 3. 4. 93 vii. 8 


358 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, 


betrays a strong apologetic tendency, the explanation of which 
is to be sought not merely in the Apostle’s position, but still 
more in the circumstances of the Church to which it was 
addressed. 

10. We cannot discuss in this place whether or no the 
Gospels had been composed at this time.!? If they really belong 
to an earlier period, the absence of allusions to them in the 
Epistles is all the more surprising (I. Cor. 1x. 14 ; I. Tim. v. 18.) 
But if, as is probable, they are to be set down to a later period, 
this fact supplies a further proof for Tradition. * For it shows 
that the early ages were not solicitous about having complete 
reminiscences of the life of Jesus in writing. Anyhow the 
history of the origin of the Gospels shows that they were not 
written with the view of giving a full account of the life and 
teaching of Jesus, that should serve as a basis for preaching and 
instruction 18 Nor was there any need for this as long as eye- 
witnesses lived, or the living tradition of the first witnesses was 
still fresh in the memory. ‘To build up faith in Christ and to 
“foster the new-born religious life, it was sufficient to have 
“Apostolic preaching ..., the Gospel concerning Christ, 
“which had little in common with the historical details in the 
“earthly life of Jesus.” 14 
x2. See Christ. Apo). vol. II. chap. xii. 


13 Chr. Afol. U. ¢. 
14 Weiss. Leben Jesu, i. 7. 


* It is of the utmost importance for the reader to have a thorough grasp of tke precise | 


meaning of the word Tradition as it is here used. By Tradition people commonly 
mean any source of information other than written. But this is not the full mean- 
ing of the word as used by Theologians. The question to be solved in Theology 
is, by what method and principle believers are made: how are individuals to get 
their faith and knowledge of revealed truth. Is it froma book containing God's 
revelation, (Scripture-principle), or is it from living, personal and authoritative 
witnesses, appointed for the purpose of guarding and preaching and explaining all 
revealed truth (principle of Tradition), Tradition, therefore, in the theological 
sense of the term means a living institution, whose duty and office is to hand down 
to men all revealed truth. It has thus an active and a passive sense. Tradition 
in the active sense is the living authority that hands down revealed truth ; in the 
passive sense it is the revealed truth as handed down by that authority. The 
Author shows that the principle of Tradition, not of Scripture, was used by Christ 
and the Apestles, and was made an essential and permanent factor in the 
Christian dispensation. Hence Tradition is both the rule and the source of faith 
for the individual believer; sacred Scripiure itself being part of that Tradition 
taken in the passive sense. 7% 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 359 


From S. Peter’s sermons, recorded in the Acts, we see that 
none but the chief events in our Lord’s life formed part of the 
Apostolic preaching. And the Epistles bear out this view, AS 
S. Paul was not an eyewitness of the life of Jesus, one might 
suppose that he would be at special pains to master all its 
details. But the very opposite is the fact. His general warning 
against another gospel has reference to everything that was not 
a necessary part of the Apostolic preaching and the general 
faith of the believers. In his Epistles he only refers to Christ's 
descent from David, to His death and resurrection. Nor can 
it be argued from I Cor. XI. 23* that he had a written text 
before him, whethe: v. 23 refers to an immediate or a mediate 
tradition. In othe: places, tco, he constantly appeals to oral 
tradition. From the prologue to S. Luke’s Gospel, it may no 
doubt be inferred that various attempts had been made to write 
sketches of the life of Jesus; but it by no means follows that 
they were authorized. Nor have we any evidence that such 
writings were employed for the purpose of evangelizing. Word 
of mouth, the preaching of the Gospel, was everywhere the 
instrument in propagating Christianity. 

11. As far as writings were in question at all, it was chiefly 
the Old ‘Testament, the Law, that was brought into requisition, 
as we learn from S. Paul’s action in the Churches that he 
founded, and then it was but a means for consolidating the 
faith that already existed in them. Evangelists are, indeed, 
once or twice mentioned (Acts XxI. 8 ; IL Tim? tv--5)5 but 
their collocation with Apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers 
(Ephes. Iv. 11) proves that they were a special class of teach- 
ers, not evangelists in the strict sense. Hence, if the Gospes 
were actually moulded on the recollections the Apostles had of 
our Lord’s life, their authors in no way intended them to 
suppress or supplant oral teaching. Rather they desired, as 
occasion served, for special ends, to complete, confirm and 


® & For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord 
Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread « « .” (1 Cor. xi. 23)- 


360 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, 


deepen oral tradition in certain churches, as in the case of 
Matthew and Mark, or in certain individuals, taken as types of 
a class, as in the case of S. Luke. The prologue te S. Luke’s 
Gospel supplies a formal explanation of this bearing of the 
Gospels on preaching and catechetical instruction, In S. John’s 
Gospel the scope is expressly stated to be apologetic and 
dogmatic. (John xx. 31), 

12. S. John’s Gospel alludes repeatedly, and towards the 
end w th especial emphasis, to the incompleteness of the fourth, 
and indeed of all the Gospels, on the ground that the life of 
Jesus was too crowded with incident to be wholly contained in 
any beok. ‘The Evangelists could compress their writings all 
the more easily as by mest evident proofs passing daily under 
their eyes they were convinced of Christ’s abiding presence, 
and of the Holy Spirit’s work in the Church. Hence the Sp’rit 
of God cannot allow the Church’s teaching and discipline to be 
ever destroyed or injured. Nor does He need a dead letter 
to pour abroad new life wheresoever He wills, For this reason 
the analogies from the history of religion are not altogether 
relevant. Buddha’s disciples bethought them to collect the 
Sayings and deeds of their friend and master, after he had left 
the world and entered into Nirvana. But Jesus had not entered 
into Nirvana. He had returned to heaven, to send down His 
Own Spirit to abide with the Church for ever. Later venerations, 
indeed, attempted to collect the oral traditions, but they thereby 
implic tly confessed that the first disciples had not thought 
it necessary to commit everything to writing. 

13. Hence it nowadays passes almost for a truism that 
Scripture is more recent. than oral tradition, and that the 
Church was founded and spread not by Holy Scripture, but by 
the living word. In other words, the principle of Scripture is 
utterly unhistorical and unbiblical. The celebrated controversy 
between Lessing and Géze on the thesis that Religion is prior 
15 Hase, p. 55: Holtzmann, Syxost. Evangelien. 1863, Pp. 50. on 60, For the older 


Protestant literature see Kuhn, Quartalscar. 1858, p, 188. Lessing, 1 heolog. 
Streitschriften etc, Leipzig, vi. 297+ 316. 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, 361 


to the Bible, has long been decided in Lessing’s favour. The 
only wonder is that, in the face of facts, the opposite plea 
could have ever been advanced at all, and defended with such 
clamorous and stubborn persistency. Nor, again, is there now 
any doubt that the Apostles sedulously impressed the spoken 
word, both for the propagation and maintenance of doctrine and 
discipline, on the hearts of their fellow workers and successors 
as well as on the faithful. Otherwise they must have fared 
badly. For the several Scriptures were not yet distributed 
among the Churches, no New Testament was in existence, and 
the Scriptures, neither individually nor collectively (even had 
they been collected), formed a complete handbook of Christian 
doctrine. The entire question of the Scripture-principle is out 
of place. It could only arise, if the Apostles had really drawn 
up a written summary of what they taught and ordained. Lut 
in regard to such, history is silent; nay it teaches the very 
opposite. The Apostles’ Creed, which goes back to the earliest 
times, proves that the faith was planted, maintained, and spread 
by preaching; in other words, by the principle of ‘Tradition. 


IL--IN THE ANTE-NICENE AGE. 


14. Of the organs by which the Apostlic doctrine was and 
is perpetuated, and by whose authority it is kept pure, we have 
already spoken. By committing to the successors, on whom 
they laid hands, the heritage of faith, they gave a guarantee that 
tradition, in the objective sense, would remain an unpoiluted 
source of faith, and, in the subjective sense, would serve as the 
formal principle or rule of faith, The successors of the Apostles 
transmit the Apostolic legacy, and exercise the judicial authority 
necessary in important questions of faith, 

“The Apostles,” says S. Clement, writing to the Corinthians, 
“sent by Jesus Christ who was sent by God, preached the 
“Gospel to us. . « . « Hence after they had received 
“their commands, and had been strengthened, and filled with 
“ conviction by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, they 


362 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, 


“went forth with perfect confidence in the Holy Ghost, and 
“preached the advent of the kingdom of God.” But for the 
benefit of future believers, they ordained bishops and deacons 
who were likewise to work in the Holy Spirit. ‘Here lies the 
root of the entire Catholic principle of Tradition,”16 And thus 
the relation subsisting between the Apostles and Christ and the 
Holy Spirit is set down as the pattern and beginning of the 
relationship in which the bishops stand to Christ. This is the 
chief message that Ignatius delivered to his age. Accordingly, 
the notion of tradition here given was very ancient in the 
Gentile Churches. Its elements are God, Christ, the Twelve, 
the Churches. It extends to doctrine, worship, and hierarchy. 
How is it possible, we ask, for him who has before his eyes 
the testimony of Holy Writ to the practice of our Lord, to the 
institution of the Apostolate, the solemn charge, and promises 
made to it, to the words and deeds of the Apostles, finally to 
the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers, how is it possible, with 
cyes open, to speak of the principle of tradition as an ‘‘historical 
fiction,” and an “unhistorica] excrescence?” Is it not rather true 
to say that the Zeclesia Apostolica and the Charisma Veritatis, 
inherent in its episcopate, far from being a “deviation of 
Christian doctrine”! is, on, the contrary, the cause and reason 
why any Christian doctrine has been preserved at all! But to 
proceed with the historical proof. 

15. Theauthor of the Epistle 4d@ Diognetum, in the some- 
what doubtful appendix, makes tradition the backbone of his 
teaching. The Church is preserved and gladdened by tradition 
as well as by the fear of the law, and the grace of the prophets, 
and faith in the Gospels. Papias, a disciple of S. John the 
Apostle, set to work to collect the sayings (Zogia) of Jesus, as 
the disciples had received them from the lips of our Lord, and 
handed them down by word of mouth; for he thought the 


6 Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, i. x12. Clem. Rom. i. 42. 


w Weingarten, Avrchengesch Labellen. 3 ed. 1887, P- 17- The German word js 
literally ‘an externalization.” Tr. 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 363 


reading of the Scriptures less profitable than the living word of 
tradition.!8 The ‘‘Presbyters” supplied him with what he 
desired. A “Presbyter,” as a disciple of the Apostles, was 
with TIrenzeus a voucher, and with other fathers (Clement of 
Alexandria and others) the authority for their information. 
Hence the bishops are Presbyters (Sacerdotes) because “ by 
“their succession they are witnesses and vouchers for the 
“tradition; they go back to the times that are past, and are 
“thus able to do what the discijles of the Apostles have 
*done.”!9 Some writers, among them the author above quoted, 
are of opinion that, at the transit on from the first to the second 
generation, the survivors of the first generation naturally became 
the Presbyters, and consequently the authority for tradition ; 
that this rule applied both to the narrow limits of each com- 
munity, and to the body of the faithful at large; and that this 
custom was the origin of the order of bishops (i.e. overseers), as 
a permanent status or office. But this is reading into the pages 
of history, not out of them, We have already seen that, in the 
time of the Avostles, there existed an office, of which the 
preaching and handing down of truth was considered an 
essential part. No doubt the elders were chosen by preference, 
as being the best witnesses of tradition, and as having the 
wisest heads for ruling the Church. For this reason Timothy 
is bidden not to impose hands on a neophyte (I Tim. 11. 6.) 
The College of Elders among the Jews supplied a precedent in 
this respeet. 

16. S. Polycarp, too, another disciple of John, like Papias, 
“stands decidedly nearer to the Catholic principle of tradition 
‘than to the Protestant Scripture principle.”*° He exhorts the 
Philippians to abandon false teachers, and to return to the 
doctrine handed down from the beginning. The C/ementines 
make Peter say: ‘Lend me your ears. It is well that each 
18 Euseb. H. &. iii. 39 (40). 


19 Weizsacker. Apostel Zeitalter, 1886, p, 642. 


go Weifenbach, Papiasfragmente. 1824, Pe 132 Higelnfeld, Zettschrift. far 
wissensth. Theologic. 1875, p- 258. 


364 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, 


“one, according to his ability, should help those who join the 
‘faith of our religion. And therefore it should not be a burden 
“‘to you to instruct and to teach the ignorant, so, however, that 
“vou hold fast to what I have delivered unto you, and thereby 
“clench the eloquence of your words. Do not put forward 
“what is your own and what has not been handed down to you, 
“even though it be quite true; but hold, as I have said, to 
“what I have received from the true prophets, and have 
“delivered unto you.”?! 

17. .S. Ireneus reminds his former friend Florinus of the 
instructions they received together from S. Polycarp, who told 
them all that ke had heard from S. John and other eye- 
witnesses about Christ, and His miracles, and doctrine ; he tells 
him how Polycarp preached all that the Scriptures had handed 
down concerning the Word of Life. ‘‘And what, through 
**God’s great mercy, I then eagerly drank in, I have written 
“down not on paper, but in my heart, and by God’s grace I 
‘often recall it faithfully.” 

It is confessedly often difficult t0 prove that the Apostolic 
Fath: rs are employing the Scriptures, and especially the Gospels, 
as they for the most part quote from memory, or, more still, from 
tradition. Ata comparatively early date, indeed, the Gospels, 
as well as the Epistles, may have been read aloud at divine 
service, although S. Justin is our first informant ;?? but the 
spoken word, preaching, was the ordinary medium for teaching 
and converting. ‘‘ Clearly,” says the writer of a life of Jesus, 
“the need for supplementing oral Tradition with writing only 
‘arose after the generation of those who had heard the eye- 
‘witnesses had died out. Then, oral Tradition began to grow 
‘dim with age, and gradually to lose its lustre.”?3 Anyhow, it 
is quite certain that the oral Tradition inherited from the 
Apostles and their followers was for a long period almost the 
only source of information concerning primitive Christianity, 
2X Vii. 37. 


22 Afol. i. 67. 
23 Weiss, i. 18. 


~ 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 365 


Even in the early decades of the second century, it disputed 
supremacy with the Canon.** {ft is conceded, moreover, that 
the great Fathers of the fourth century, Basil, Chrysostom, and 
others, claimed for oral Tradition equal right with the written 
word, and demanded that the unwritten deposit, inherited from 
the Apostles, should, “without proof, be vested with the same 
“ credibility as the Canonical Scriptures.”* 

18. The significance of living Tradition, and its relation to 
Scripture, was brought into prominence by the Gnostics, wkose 
new-fangled doctrines, being diametrically at variance with the 
received teaching of the Church, had to be proved, or at least 
justified from Scripture and Tradition. They pretended, from 
the stores of their superior gnosis, to elaborate certain docrines 
of the Christian xijpvypya (preaching) into a rule of faith. But 
they were not prepared to admit that the Tradition was public, 
or to connect its diffusion with any ecclesiastical organization.”® 

Ireneus and Tertullian were the Church’s doughty cham- 
pions against Gnosticism. Hence, too, they were the first to 
expound, of set purpose, the doctrine of Scripture and Tra- 
dition. Their object was not to “put Tradition on a level with 
“the New Testament, as if they thought that Tradition alone 
“was a sufficient weapon in controversies with heretics ;”*7 
but they intended to deal with the who'e question of Tradition 
in all its bearings, and to show thenecessity of the Tradition 
that began with, and flowed from, the Apostolic Church, For 
Gnostics were the aggressors. They assailed the Church’s 
Tradition, and drove her to defend her bulwarks. They rejec- 
ted the Old Testament ; and, as to the New, it is admitted that 
“ there was then no generally received teaching as to the reading 
“and constituent parts of the New Testament, and the interpre- 
“tation of Scripture, both within the Church and without, was 


24. Semisch, Denkiwirdigheiten Justins, 1848, p. 39% Credner, Finlezig. in die H. 
Schrift. i. 36. Lathardt, Der /ohanneische Ursprung des 4 Evangel. 1874, p- 27: 

25. Semisch, p. 401. . 

26 Harnack, i. 1288. Neots 3, 

27 Hase, p. 04 


366 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 


“equally arbitrary.” For these reasons Tradition, and naught 
else but Tradition, was compctent to join issue with heresy in 
single combat. Ecclesiastical Tradition, as supported by the 
Church’s authority, was the sole judge of controversies in 
matters of faith, And it would have been so, even had the 
entire New Testament Canon been collected and recognized. 
For, how else, if not by general Tradition, was “any generally 
received teaching” possible, if the interpretation of Scripture 
was equally capricious within and without the Church? From 
whom else, moreover, would the Canon have obtained recogni- 
tion? Whence came the generally received interpretation? 


When, then, was there a change to the detriment of the princi- 


ple of Tradition, and in favour of that of Scripture? We 
scarcely need remind our adversaries of their own admission 
that the Canon bears on its face the marks of greater youth 
than Tradition. 

Appeal! to Scripture, says Melchior Canus,* is common to 
almost all heretics, This is but giving voice to a thought often 
expressed by the Fathers. It was their experience that every 
heresy, taking pattern by the devil in tempting Christ, could 
quote one or other passage of Scripture. Howsoever diversified 
heresies may be,—whether Gnostics in the second century, 
Sabellians in the third, Arians in the fourth, Nestorians and 
Pelagians in the fifth, Cathari and Waldenses in the twelfth, 
and Reformers in the sixteenth,—they one and all reject Apos- 
tolic Tradition, and erect Scripture into a self-supporting formal 
principle.*? The Gnostics, indeed, appealed to a secret Tradi- 
tion come down from the Apostles, But their appeal was 
hardly intended au sérieux. Rather it was wrested from them 
by the fact that the principle of Tradition was universally 
acknowledged. A proof drawn exclusively from Scripture was, 


28 M. Canus, iii. x, 

ag See Athan, De Synod. 13. 14. 40. 43. 47. Basil, De Spir.c. 10. Aug., Coll. & 
Maxint c 1. De Nat. et Grat. c. 39. Cyrill. Alex., c. 39. Hardnin, act 
Concid. 11, 186. Mohler, Syd. p. 365. Somewhat differently Kuua, Dheoh 


Quart. 1858. p. go. 


P Se ey a a, ee su re gh Oy Cn Bee OO, Oe ee 


- 
< 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 367 


in those days, for reasons already given, an impossibility On 
the other hand, the Gnostics, seeing that the Old Testament 
tallied not with their teaching, threw it overboard in its entirety, 
while they clipped and snipped the New Testament Canon untt! 
st fitted their doctrines. Or they would appeal to their superior 
knowledge aid insight. In either case, Sciipture and Traditioa 
were roughly mauled. ‘ When, however, they are confuted 
“from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse the same 
“Scriptures, a3 if they were not correct, nor of authority, and 
“fassert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot 
“be extracted from them by those wha are ignorant of tradition 
“For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means 
“of written documents, but wv voce: wherefore also Paul 
“declared, ‘But we speak wisdom among those that ar2 
perfect, but not the wisdom of this world’ (I Cor. 1 6). 
“ And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction 
‘of his own inventing, forsooth , so that, according to their 
‘idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Vaientiaus, at 
“another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, thea afterwards 
“in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any othee 
“opponent. . . . But, again, when we refer them to /4at 
* fradition waich is from the Apostles, [and] which is preserurd 
“by means of the succession of presbyters in the churches, they 
“ object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not 
“merely than the presbyters, but even than the Apostles, 
“because they have discovered the unadulterated truth 
“Tt comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent 
“neither to Scripture nor to Tradition.” ° 

Trenseus then proceeds to show that it is the height of unreasoa 
to suppose that the Apostles entrusted a secret tradition to the 
Gnostics. They must necessarily, he says, have entrusted it 
to the men whom they charged to watch over the Churches. 
He then singles out for special mention the bishops of Rome. 
Consequently, truth is enshrined in the faith of the Church. 


ge Iren. III. c. 2 (Clark's Transl.). See Stieren, II. 254. Kuhn, p. 203 


368 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, 


Should important questions be in dispute, they must be referred. 


to the oldest Churches, in which the Apostles conversed ; there, 
Certitude and clearness are to be found ®! More especially he 
points to the Roman Church as the standard, because the 
Apostolic Tradition has been perpetually retained by her faith- 
ful, who are spread all over the world. The appeal to Scripture 
he dismisses with the remark that, while regarding Scripture 
and Tradition as alike sources of faith, he still upholds Tradition 
not only as a sufficient, but as a formal principle, of faith, inas- 
much as the truth of Holy Scripture cannot be erected into a 
norma of interpretation, except through the instrumentality of 
Tradition, Tradition is the well-spring and head.- With it rests 
the decision. It alone can set and keep faith firm. For this 
task Scripture is incompetent. “ For how should it be if the 
“Apostles them-elves had not left us writings? Would it not 


“be necessary, [in that case] to follow the course of Tradition - 
“which they handed down to those to whom they did commit 


“the Churches? To which course many nations of those 
“barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation 
“written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, 
“and carefully preserving the ancient Tradition . . . Those 
‘who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this 
“faith, are barbarians so far as regards our language; but as 
“regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because 
“of faith, very wise indeed . . . If any one were to preach 
“to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them 
“in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and 
“flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the 
“blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient 
“ Tradition of the Apostles, they do not suffer their mind to 
“conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] por- 
“tentous language of these teachers, among whom neither 
“Church nor doctrine has ever been established,” 8? 


31 Jbid.c. 3 
$2 Iren. iii. c. 4 See alsoc. 1 and 2 Also iv, c. 243 


ee ee ee 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 369 


As of old, S. Paul delivered the feith to the heathen without 
written proof, and by his efforts won greater victories for faith 
than the others, so S. Paul’s method is repeated in the Church 
as eften as barbarous tribes are converted by preaching and 
Tradition, without the Scriptures. On this point Augustine 
is thoroughly in accord with Irenzus. ‘“ He who steadfastly 
“takes his stand on faith, hope. and charity, needs no Scriptures, 
“except in order to convince others. Hence there are many 
‘who live retired on these three, without books,”% 

The above passage from Irenzeus was quoted by Lessing in 
his discussion with Goze. His eight axiom runs thus: “If 
“there was a time when Christianity was widespread, and 
“exercised sway over many souls, and yet possessed absolutely 
“no records in writing, it must be possible for all that the 
“Apostles and Evangelists have written to perish, while the 
“religion they taught would stand.” The reader may with 
with advantage consult the passage in which Lessing describes _ 
Christians living in the Bermudas, and having no Bible. 

Trenzeus never intended either to disparage Scripture, or to 
degrade Tradition into a mere crutch for men who could neither 
know nor understand Scripture. But, in his idea, Apostolic 
Tradition was the first and chief means for spreading the faith 
and regulating divine worship ; it stood as guarantor for Holy 
Scripture, and supplied the key to its interpretation. None but 
the Apostolic Churches have preserved the Apostolic Tradition ; 
from their presbyters the truth is to be learned, by them our 
faith is saved, and Scripture safely interpreted. It 1s owing to 
them that we possess the complete and genuine Scriptures, 
without addition, diminution, or falsification, and can without 
danger of error interpret them correctly and precisely. For 
together with Episcopal Succession it has pleased the Father to 
grant them the cewé.in charisma of truth.*4 

19. Zertullian, too, professes the same cardinal principles in 


33 De Doctrina Christ. i. 30s 
34 Iren, iv. c. 33 N. 8 


370 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, 


regard to the rule of faith. But he outstrips Irenzeus in that he 
contrasts the principle of Tradition still more forcibly with that 
of Scripture. He simply challenges the right of heretics to settle 
points of faith from Scripture.** For apart from the fact that 
heretics falsify the fragment of Scripture that they receive, and 
coin endless varieties of interpretations that distort its meaning, 
it is in the nature of book-disputes and mere literary warfare that 
the balance may incline to either side. Faith, therefore, must 
be sought elsewhere; and it can only be found where Christ has 
deposited His truth. Traditional truth brands as lies all sub- 
sequent heretical concoctions. It is one and unchangeable, 
while error 1s shifting and manifold. There is an absolute and 
universal canon for knowing the truth :86 “JT say that my Gospel 
“is the true one; Marcion says the same of his. I affirm that 
** Marcion’s Gospel is adulterated; Marcion, that mine is. Now 
‘‘what is to settle the point for us, except it be that principle of 
“time, which rules that the authority lies with that which shal! 
“be found to be more ancient, and assumes as an clemental 
“truth that corruption (of doctrine) belongs to the side which 
“snail be convicted of comparative lateness in its origin. For, 
“inasmuch as error is falsification of truth, it must needs be 
“that truth therefore precede error... . On the whole, then, 
“if that is evidently more true which is earlier, if that is earlier 
‘which is from the very beginning, if that is from the very 
“beginning which has the Apostles for its authors, then it will 
“certainly be quite as evident that that comes down from the 
‘Apostles, which has been kept as a sacred deposit in the 
“ Churches of the Apostles.” Heretics are a later growth, that 
cannot be grafted on the Apostolic Churches. And therefore 
Catholics have the very truth itself; they cling to the rule of 
faith that the Church has received from the Apostles, the 
Apostles in their turn from Christ, and Christ from God.*7 “ For 
“this reason it is that he calls the heretic ‘ selfconcemned,’ 
35 De Praescr. c. 15 et 37. 


36 Adv Marc. iv. 4, 5 cf. v. 19. De Praescr. Cc 29, 30 
37 De Praescr. ¢. 37+ 


SCRIPTURF, AND TRADITION. 371 


‘because he has himself chosen that for which he is condemned. 
“We, however, are not permitted to cherish anything [in 
“ doctrine} after our own will, nor yet to make choice of that 
‘‘which another has introduced of his private fancy. In the 
“TLord’s Apostles we possess our authority ; for even they did 
“ not of themselves choose to introduce anything, but faithfully 
“delivered to the nations the doctrine which they now received 
“from Christ.”38 He, then, goes on to say that even an angel 
from heaven cannot alter this rule. 

For this reason, heretics, by rejecting the teaching of the 
Apostles who wrote the Scriptures, have no right to appeal 
to the Scriptures, Nor, again, may they interpret them, because 
they lack Apostolic truth. For the truth of the Scriptures, 
of the interpretation thereof, and of all Christian Traditions, 
must be where the truth of discipline and of Christian faith 
abides? Nay Tertullian goes so far as to maintain that the 
Scriptures were ordained by the will of God to provide material 
for error, that the word of the Apostle might be fulfilled 
(I Cor. x1. tg). For, were there no Scriptures, there would 
be no- heresies.40 He explains his meaning by saying that 
heretics, in casting aside the rule of faith, and relying on their 
own conceit to interpret Scripture, use the Scriptures to find 
2 plausible justification for their heresy On this point Tertullian 
could speak from experience. As to the value of controversies 
carried on with Scripture only as a basis of operation, he 
remarks: ‘Now this heresy of yours does receive certain 
“Scriptures; and whichever of them it does reczive, it 
‘*perverts by means of additions and diminutions, for the 
“accomplishment of its own purpose ; and such as it does 
“receive, it receives not in their entirety ; but even when it 
“ does receive any up toa certain point as entire, it nevertheless 
“perverts even these by the contrivance of diverse inter 


38 L.¢.c. 6. 
Bom f. Cc. C139. 
40 L. 6. C. 39 


372 . SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, 


“pretations. Truth is just as much opposed by an adulteration 
“of its meaning as by a corruption of its text . . . Though 
“most skilled in the Scriptures, you will make no progress (in 
“disputing with heretics), when everything which you maintain 
“is denied on the other side, and whatever you deny is (by 
“them) maintained. As for yourself, indeed, you will lose 
“nothing but your breath, (and) gain nothing but vexation 
“from their blasphemy.”4! 

But the Scriptures are not, on this account, to be despised. 
Tertullian assigns them their true position in the Christian 
ceconomy. They are instruments in the hands of the qualified 
workman, that is the Church, for building up the faith. They 
are instruments of proof, when read and interpreted in the 
spirit of the Church. This is a favourite expression of his. 
Thus Tertullian speaks of the evangelical instrument, consisting 
of the four Gospels; of Apostolic instruments, to wit the Acts 
o: the Apostles, S. Paul’s thirteen Epistles; of the instrument 
of john in which he reckons the Apocalypse and S, John’s 
First Epistle. Besides these there is an appendix to the 
Apostolic instruments, which includes S. Peter’s First Epistle, 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Epistle of Jude. Tertullian 
was a lawyer, and as such he would know the value of instru- 
ments. What use he made of them, we can see from his hooks 
against Marcion. But with him, as with other authors, Tradition, 
as embodied in the rule of faith, was a fixed principle.4? It 
was “the shield handed down from our forefathers, on which 
“they received every hostile thrust. It was the Christian 
“conscience itself, transmitted in history,”#3 the conscience 
of the Apostolic Churches, of the Catholic Church. The rule 
of faith, considered objectively as the stock of teaching inherited 
from the Apostles, and in its subjective sense as the living 
consciousness of faith pervading the whole Church, formed the 
ground an1 standard of faith, 

41 1b. c. 17% 


42 Ye Praescr.c. 13. De Vel. Virg. Cs 
43 Hase, p. 65. 


~ SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. ot3 


20. Nor was the Greek Church aware of any other plan 
for defending the faith. It had the same rule of faith as 
umpire in controversy, although it did not assume an atti- 
tude of utter hostility to Gnosis, and reject it as unceremo- 
niously as Tertullian did. Like Irenzeus and Tertullian, 
Clement of Alexandria complains bitterly that heretics capri- 
ciously misuse Holy Scripture. Firstly he shows that the 
deposit (I Tim. vi. 20) i.e. Christ’s teaching, has come 
down to us through the genuine Apostolic Tradition. It 
is laid down in Scripture which must -be explained by the 
Canon of truth. For neither the Prophets nor our divine 
Redeemer unveiled the divine mysteries so plainly that all 
could see and understand them. For the rest, all words 
are right to them that understand (Proverbs vit. 9), i.e. to 
them who receive from the Church, and keep the explana- 
tion that ‘Christ Himself gave of the Scriptures. The 
‘liars, then, in reality are not those who for the sake of 
‘“the scheme of salvation conform, nor those who err in 
‘“minute points, but those who are wrong in essentials 
‘‘and reject the Lord, and, as far as in them lies, deprive 
‘the Lord of the true teaching; who do not quote or de- 
‘‘ liver the Scriptures ina manner worthy of God and of the 
‘‘Lord ; for the deposit rendered to God, according to the 
‘‘ teaching of the Lord by His Apostles, is the understand- 
‘‘ing and the practice of the godly Tradition. And what 
‘‘ye hear in the ear, that is, in a hidden manner, and ina 
‘‘mystery (for such things are figuratively said to be spoken 
‘in the ear)—proclaim, He says, on the house-tops, under- 
‘“‘ standing them sublimely, and delivering them in a lofty 
‘‘ strain, and according to the Canon of the truth explaining 
‘the Scriptures ; for neither prophecy nor the Saviour Him- 
‘‘celf announced the divine mysteries simply so as to be 
‘easily apprehended by all and sundry, but expressed 
‘‘them in parables... But all things are right, says the 
‘Scripture (Prov. vil. 9), before those who understand, 
‘‘ that is, those who receive and observe, according to the 
‘ecclesiastical rule, the exposition of the Scriptures ex- 


374 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, 


‘plained by Him ; and the ecclesiastical rule is the concord 
“and harmony of the law and the Prophets in the covenant 
“delivered at tne coming of the Lord.” #4 

Clement, indeed, refers in the passage just quoted, and else- 
where, to a secret Apostolic tradition, but ina widely different 
sense from the Gnostics. He had no thought to overthrow 
ecclesiastical tradition. His object was to soar from it toa 
higher insight into the truths of faith.4° He refers to the verbal 
communications of estimable men who, in different parts of the 
world, preserved the true tradition of what Christ had taught, as 
they heard it from Peter, James, John, and Pau!. As Christ 
initiated them into the mysteries of the kingdom of God, and 
opened their eyes that they might understand the Scriptures, so 
they, in turn, imparted this knowledge to their followers, and 
transmitted it to posterity. To all men of every degree, whether 
high or low, bishops or laity, the Apostles bequeathed this rule 
of faith;*® but only the spiritual gain that insight which the 
Apostles gave, when preaching and instructing in the Spirit of 
God. Infants must be fed with milk; solid food is for the 
perfect.’ (I°Cors11,"6). 

But “true gnosis and genuine aiperis is only to be found in 


»P) 


the ancient Church.” Heretics have neither learnt nor received 
the truth, but have fallen away from it. ‘ For those who make 
“the greatest attempts, must fail in things of the highest 
‘importance ; unless, receiving from the truth itself the rule of 
“the truth, they cleave to the truth. But such people, in 


“consequence of falling away from the right path, err in most 


individual points, as you might expect from not having the 
‘faculty for judging of what is true and false, strictly trained to 
“select what is essential. For if they had, they would have 
“obeyed the Scriptures. As then, if a man should, similarly 
“to those drugged by Circe, become a beast; so he, who has 


44 Strem. vi. 15. (Clark’s Transl.) 
45 L.¢.c. 15. Alsow 7 
46 L. c vil. 15 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. (378 


spurned ihe ecclesiastical tradition, and darted off to the 
“opinions of heretical men, has ceased to be a man of God, 
‘and to remain faithful to the Lord.” The true gnostic is he 
who “having grown old in the Scriptures, and maintaining 
‘apostolic and ecclesiastic orthodoxy in doctrines, lives most 
“correctly in accordance with the Gospel.” 

Thus, according to Clement, there are, indeed, two guides in 
religious knowledge, but not a “double-faced ,Christianity: one 
“for the common herd, and another, concealed beneath its 
“surface, for the wiseacre.”’ 49 

20. Oriven follows in his master’s (Clement) footsteps in all 
points except on the question of secret tradition. An epitome 
of his teaching anent Tradition is found in the preface to “ De 
principiis.” “ Ail who firmly believe that grace and truth came 
‘to us through Christ . . . draw wisdom from Christ's 
‘words and teaching. . . . Since, however, many who 
“profess to believe in Christ swerve from the right path, net 
“only in that which is little and trivial, but also in that which 
“is great and important . . . it is necessary to lay down 
a rule at once fixed and clear. . . . We must hoid fast 
“io the Church’s teaching, which has come down in ar 
‘unbroken line from the Anosties, and has continued in the 
‘Church to this day. Only that is to be believed as Christian 
“truth, wh'ch deflects not by a hair’s breadth from ecclesiastt- 
“cal and Apostolic Tradition.” In these words Origen hag 
laid down the rule of faith and Christian science, notwithstand- 
ing the veneration which he, like Irenzeus, had fcr Scripture as 
God’s word,*® and the arguments he drew from it, especially in 
his controversy with Celsus. This goes without saying, but it 
gains emphasis by repetition. As long as the Disciplina arcant 
prevailed, Christianity did not reach the outside world except 
(hrough the medium of the sacred books. From these Celsus 
47 Zips vii. 16 (Clark’s Translation). See Miébler, Patrologie, Pe 455» 

48 Lbid. 


49 Lessing, Werke, Leipzig, vi. 309 
50 See ln Jerem. 21.n.2. Je Num. a7o 


256 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, 


derived his plan of attack on Christianity, and his calumnies 
against the faith and virtues of Christians. What, then, more 
natural, than that the defender of Christianity should carry 
war into the same territory, in order to dislodge the enemy 
from his entrenchments ? 

How little satisfaction Origen derived from the letter of_ 
Scripture is shewn by his allegorical method, which was based 
on the Church’s faith and tradition. Truth, as tran-~itted and 
enshrined in the Chnrch, is the starting-point of his theolog gy, 
the goal of his apology, and the rule of his exegesis. The 
truth of the Church becomes more intelligible and gains in the 
estimation of an opponent, if it be also contained in books 
which, though written by uneducated men, far surpass all 
heathen wisdom. In the early chapters of Genesis the Apolo- 
gists discerned the quintessence of all wisdom, and consequently 
of Christianity.5! They declared that heathen philosophers 
had drawn from Scripture whatever truth they possessed. Who, 
then, can be surprised if, in controversy with the heathen, 
they should have ransacked the Scriptures for proofs ? Like 
all Christians, they got their faith from the Church. But they 
used the Scriptures in support of the ecclesiastical rule of faith, 
to drive home conviction to the heat!.en, and to perfect them- 
selves in understanding tiie articles of faith. No doubt ever 
crossed their minds about the perfect harmony of Scripture 
and Tradition. A Scripture dogma, such as Origen calls the — 
Resurrection, is not in opposition to a Traditional dogma. 
For he himself goes on to say: “ We cling with all the tenacity 
“of our soul to the faith of Christ’s Church, and the great 
“promises of God.” Lessing had Ase the better of — 
Pastor G6éze, when he asked somewhat pointedly: ‘‘ Are, then, 
“two different things contrary one to the other?” 

' 22.* We have quoted at some length the evidence for the 
| principle for Tradition, as a source and rule of faith, from: the 


gr Harnack, I. 408. Note 2, 
52 C. Ceds., v. az. Cf. De Princip. Ul. 10 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 207 


chief representative writers of the first few centuries. The 
testimonies are as precise, definite, and emphatic as they are 
general and varied. In all cases, whether in controversy with 
heretics, or in the tranquil search after a higher and deeper 
understanding of revealed truth in Scripture and Tradition, the 
writers agree that Tradition, —ecclesiastical preaching, the living 
consciousness of the Church—determines both the contents and 
the rule of faith. The unanimous teaching of these early Fathers, 
moreover, perfectly accords with what we have learnt from 
the history of the New Testament concerning the foundation 
of the Church by our Lord, and its propagation by the Apostles. 
This, then, being the fixed and well established order in the 
whole Church, and a fundamental condition of its existence 
and life, we are justified in asking whether it is conceivab'e 
that a change, a radical change, of principle could have subse- 
quently taken place? Yet there are writers who have ‘tried to 
persuade the world that in course of time such a radical 
change came to be adopted. It is said, that the time came 
when “truth was pitted against usage,” and ‘Scripture against 
“Tradition.” Let us examine whether this ebjection can be 
sustained. 
Ul; OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED, 


23. The first protest against the hitherto universally recog- 
nized sovereignty of Tradition, is alleged to have come from 
the African Church.53 To Stephen, Bishop of Rome, when he 
justified the custom of his Church in not baptizing heretics 
anew, by an appeal to /ta fraditum est: “Thus it has been 
“handed down from my predecessors,” Cyprian replied: 
‘Whence is that Tradition ? Does it come from the authority 
of Christ and of the Gospel, or from the Apostolic Epistles ? 
“For those things that are written must be observed, as God 
“ bears witness. When He spake to Josue: Let not the book of 
“this law depart out of thy mouth, but take care to observe all 
“that is written herein. Also the Lord, sending His Apostles, 


33 Hase, p. 65+ 


378 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, 


**commands that the nations should be baptized, and taught to 
* ob: erve all things which He commanded. If, therefore, it is 
‘either prescribed in the Gospel, or contained in the Epistles. 
“or Acts of the Aposties, that those who come from any heresy, 
“should not be baptized, but only hands. laid upon them to 
“‘repentance, let this divine and holy tradition be observed. 
*“. . But in vain do they worship me, teaching the doctrines 
“and commands of men (Isaias). The Lord, too, in the 
*‘ Gospel, similarly rebukes and reproves, and saying: Ye reject 
“the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own 
“tradition.” Cyprian then goes on to say that custom shorn 
of truth shows but the baldness of error. The decision rests not 
with custom but with reason. Our Lord says in the Gospel: 
“T am the truth.” He said not: I am the observance, So 
when truth is made manifest, custom must yield.64 And the 
farther annotation is added from Tertullian 5°: Our Lord called 
Himself truth, not custom. 

24. After what we have heard, Zertudlian might well be left 
in peace. Scarce any Father has fought so. hard for the 
principle of Ecclesiastical Tradition. And thus the passage 
cited cannot overthrow his fixed principle. Still it will be 
interesting to define its bearings more exactly. The question 
in dispute is as to whether virgins should be veiled in Church. 
Tertullian is trying to prove that this is required by truth, 
which no prescriptive rights can gainsay—neither length of 
time, nor personal favour, nor local immunities. By these 
agencies a custom, originating in ignorance or stupidity, is 
generally translated into action, takes firmer root as time goes 
on, an] is set up in opposition to truth. But our Lord Jesus 
Christ called himself Truth not Custom. As Christ always 
was, and existed before all things, so truth likewise is ancient 
and eternal. Let them see to it, who regard that as new which 
Is old. Heresy is convicted not so much by its own novelty, 


54 Lpist. 73, 2-35 74) % 
55 De Virg. Veli 


it ee 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 379 


as by truth. Even an old custom, if not founded on truth, 
will grow into a heresy. So far Tertullian. But is it diffi- 
cult to perceive a difference between this, and the principle 
of Tradition? There is no question of an Apostolic Tradi- 
tion, but of a custom (conswetudo), taking its rise in stupid- 
ity, which had sprung up in defiance of ecclesiastical disci- 
pline. Moreover, be it noted, Tertullian appeals, not to 
Scripture, but to Christ, who is ever living and abiding in 
His Church. Finally, to remove all doubt, Tertullian fin- 
ishes by appealing to the ‘‘ one unalterable and irreform- 
able rule of faith.’’ If only this rule be held firm, other 
points of discipline and social innovations may, with 
God's grace and the help of the Holy Spirit, be cor- 
rected. 

One assertion may, indeed, excite surprise, viz. : that 
heresy betrays itself more by its opposition to truth than by 
its novelty, whereas the whole treatise De Prescriptionibus 
is almost entirely taken up in formulating the contrary 
principle. Unless we can bring ourselves to see here traces 
of the Montanist error,—and they are perceptible,—the 
two principles can only be reconciled by understanding 
‘truth’ to mean the living truth in the Church. Anda 
passage in another treatise of the same Apologist tells in 
favour of this view. Tertullian is giving a list of customs,® 
not specified in Scriptures but ratified by a usage that un- 
doubtedly flowed from Tradition. He proceeds thus: 
“ And how long shall we go on, sawing backwards and for- 
““ wards upon this line, when we have an old established ob- 
““servance, which, in preventing the question, hath decid- 
“edit? If no Scripture hath determined this, assuredly 
““custom hath confirmed it, which, doubtless, has been de- 
‘rived from Tradition. For how can a thing be used, un- 
“less it be first delivered to us? But, thou sayest, even 
“where Tradition is pleaded, written authority ought to 
““be required. Wherefore tet us enquite whether none, 
““save a written Tradition, ought to be received. Cer- 


56 De Coron. c. 3. 


380 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 


‘“‘ tainly we shall deny that it ought to be received, if there 
““be no precedents to determine the contrary in other ob- 
““servances, which, without any Scripture document, we 
““ defend onthe ground of Tradition alone, and by the sup- 
*‘ port of consequent custom.’’* For the ceremonies used 
in Baptism, he continues, for the Eucharist, and sacrifices 
for the dead, for customary acts during prayer, and for the 
use of the sign of the cross on all occasions,—for these 
and other disciplinary practices there is no warrant in Scrip- 
ture. ‘* For these and such like rules if thou requirest a 
““‘law in the Scriptures, thou shalt find none. Tradition 
““ will be pleaded to thee es originating them, custom as 
““ confirming them, and faith as observing them.’’ 

25. Cyprian uses the same expression, and gives the same 
turn to his phrase as Tertullian. ‘‘ For we must follow not 
‘“the customs of man, but the truth of God.” This re- 
mark is levelled at some who were wont to say mass with- 
out wine. Against their practice he appealed to Christ and 
the Apostles. His letter opens with the striking words: 
““ Although I know full well that most bishops, set by Di- 
*“ vine Providence over the Church of Christ in all lands, 


“hold fast to the prescription of Gospel Truth and the _ 


** Lord’s Tradition, still I deem it necessary and conducive 
‘“to the interests of religion, to write to you, so that, 
*“should any one find himself entangled in that error, he 
** may, after seeing the shining light of truth, return to the 
‘root and fountain head of the Lord’s Tradition.’’ What, 
then, after all, is Cyprian fighting against? An innovation 
that some had adopted in saying mass,—an innovation in 
glaring contradiction with the Gospel Tradition. Thus he 
writes to Cornelius: ‘‘ As the sacredness of divine Tradi- 
““tion and ecclesiastical discipline, equally with truth, de- 
Matlands. 

The same remark holds for the passage above quoted. For 
the custom against which Cyprian wished to raise a protest 
57 Ep. 63, 145 7% 3- 

58 Lfpist. 45,1. 
* De Coron. c. 3. (Oxford Transl.) 


4 
; 

% 
§ 
{ 
2 
; 
, 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 331 


was not Apostolic Tradition, but human ordinances set up 
in rivalry to what Christ had instituted. ‘The principle is right, 
but its application wrong. In his mind the Roman custom 
was not an Apostolic Tradition, but a human ordinance. Like 
Firmilian, he wrongly supposed heretical baptism to be analogous 
to the aforementioned usages, and a mere point of discipline ; 
although, at times, he strongly insists on the consequences for 
salvation of the opposite view.* Cyprian was perfectly aware that 
a genuine Apostolic Tradition can never clash with either truth 
or reason. Had he conceived the recognition of heretical 
baptism to be an Apostolic Tradition, he would not have said 
that in spiritual matters we must follow what the Holy Spirit 
has ordained for the best. But against what he thought a purely 
human custom he was free to assert vigorcusly the rights of 
reason and Scripture. 

Had he not believed that the principle of Tradition was 
on his side, and that he could summon the tradition of the 
African Church to witness in his favour, he would probably 
not have spoken with such vehemence. At the outset, at least, 
he intended merely to enter the lists against the custom that 
had crept into several churches. “ Although,” he says, writing 
to the bishops of Numidia, “although you stand by the truth 
‘and constancy of Catholic discipline, yet because, in that 
“charity which is common to us all, you have thought fit to 
‘ask our advice, we lay before you our teaching which is not 
“new, but has been handed down from our predecessors in the 
“ hoary past, and has been observed by us.”*® In the body of 
the Epistlc he says: “if there had never been a command er 
59 &4. 70, 13 74, 2 10. See August., De Batt. Ill, s.12. Wefele, I. 122, Ritchl, 

Cyprian, p. 98- 

* Considering the language and arguments invoked by S. Cyprian, it is hard to see how 
he can be said to have considered the question as one of meve discipline. But itis 
quite clear that he did not look upon the Roman custom as an Apostolic Tradition, 
From this it might be inferred, perhaps, that the Tradition was not universally 
and explicitly known, but lay ¢zplic/tdy hidden in that fuller understanding cf 
Christian dogma of which the Cathed:a Afostolica has the key. Cyprian’s 
theological reasoning is wrong. It must be remembered too that the distinction 


between the va/id and /aw/ud administration of the Sacraments was at that time 
not clearly brought out. Tr. 


382 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, 


“prescription at all merely to lay hands on heretics unto 
penance, and then to admit them to communion . . . Is 
“it not stubborn and arrogant to pit human traditions against 
‘6a divine decree?” “If, at any point, truth reel or stagger, 
‘Owe must return to the divine source, and to the tradition of 
“the Gospels and Apostles.” “The view that converts from 
“heresy niust be baptized is not new in our Church, nor has it 
“hastily sprung up.’ 

In appealing to this tradition of the African Church, Cyprian 
was incorrect, as may “be gathered from his own statements, 
according to which Agrippinus (220) is the oldest authority. 
The author of De rebaptismate shows that his contention was 
wrong, and Augustine points out the same thing.§! Cyprian’s 
demand was almost universally regarded as an innovation, and 
as such abandoned at last even by the Africans. This was 
inevitable, once passion cooled down, and a clear view of the 
facts and merits of the case was obtained. 

26. The Letter of Aivmilian of Cesarea shows very clearly 
the standpoint taken by the S€veral parties engaged in this 


controversy. Stung to the quick by Pope Stephens’ sharp” 


rebuke and order to look to Tradition, he reproaches the 
Romans with not observing the traditions in every case, and 
with vainly sheltering themselves behind Apostolic authority. 
In proof, he instances the differences about Easter, and other 
liturgical points. But in regard to heretical baptism, he says, 
the Pope cannot appeal to Apostolic Tradition, because at that 
time there were no heretics. If then, he proceeds, each Church 
has a right to appeal to its own tradition, the true tradition on 
this point is to be found not in Rome or Africa, but in Asia 
Minor. For the power to forgive sins was vested in the 
Apostles and the Churches they founded in Christ’s name, and 
in the bishops, their successors and representatives. If then, 


~ 60 Ep. 73-3 
61 De Achapt. e x (apud Migne Tom. iii. p. 1183). Aug., De Bat. ii. 7, 12 
Vinc. Lerin., Com. c. g. Schwane, i. 736.° Déllinger, Wzppoly/us, p. 192 


. “ 
— Fe Le Se 


———- 


ca 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 393 


he says, Stephen appeals to this succession from Peter, on whom 
the foundations of the Church were laid, he ought not to make 
heretics cornerstones. Hence the Roman tradition is a purely 
human invention, the merest custom, to which even a Jew 
might appeal against Christianity. But, he concludes, truth 
must prevail, and the Africans score against Stephen at ‘east 
in this that they have forsaken the error of custom for truth. 
‘“ But we blend custom with truth, and to the custom of the 
«“ Romans we oppose the custom of truth by adhering firmly 
‘and consistently te what Christ and the Apostles have handed 
‘down. Nec: can we remember the time when it began, for it 
“has always existed in our midst.” ®?> Verily Firmilian had 
here forgotten what he had previously said about the im- 
possibility of this Tradition having an Apostolic origin. But it 
is plain from his words that the controversy was not about the 
principle of Tradition, but about true tradition as opposed to a 
particular hzman custom.* 

27. That Augustine should be put forward, as opposed to 
the universal supremacy of the principle of Tradition, is indeed 
more than strange. Scarcely any one of the later Fathers has 
so forcibly defended this principle against heresy and schism, 
and the importance of his evidence for the Catholic principle 


62 Ep. 15, 19. See Hagemann, Réwmische Kirche, p. 17, 

* The above answer of the author is good as far as it goes. But an adversary might 
press the point that, though Cyprian and Firmilian did not contend against the 
principle of Tradition generally, but rather invoked it on their own behalf, still 
they reject the specific Catholic principle of Tradition, in which the Apostolic 
See of Rome is the main factor For of the authority of this See they speak 
ligntly, and put it no higher than that of any other Episcopal See founded by 
the Aposiles. It is vain, they tell the Pope. to shelter himself behind his 
Apostolic Authority. In answer to this difficulty we have to remark, first that 
as a matter of fact and on their own confession, the Pops did shelter himse!t 
behind his Apostolic authority, and bat tt ulumateiy prevaited. Secondty taat 
they did not veyect that Apostolic authority, but oézected to it In this particular 
instance. The reason of which 1s quite intelligible from thetr point ck view 
For supposing, as they did, that there existed an explicit tradition contrary to 
that of Rome, and realiy traceable to the Aposties. tt wou,d be a Clear proot 
that the Roman custom was not Apostolic, nor could tne Apostate autnonmty 
in that case, come into play For it was aot conceivadie that on this point 
there could be two contrary Apostolic traditions (in so fac tnis case differ: from 
the custom of keeping Easter). Thus there 1s no evidence to show tnat Cyprias 
and Firmilian were ignorant of or rejected the apectfic Catholic principe of 
Tradition. 77% 


384 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, 


of Tradition is generally acknowledged.® ‘Here and there one 
or other stray expression akin to those used by the early 
Africans may be discovered ; but the discordant note, if such 
there be, is drowned in the general harmony of his doctrine as 
a whole. To prove this formally will be all the easier, because 
the controversy about heretical baptism led Augustine to discuss 
Cyprian’s position. While praising Cyprian for remaining with- 
in the Church’s unity despite his conflict, he cannot allow his 

iew to pass. Cyprian’s appeal to a supposititious tradition, he 
argues, finds no support in. the tradition of the Church, as is 
clear from his own words. But when he appeals to truth, 
Augustine gives him the correct answer: ‘‘ Of course, no one 
“doubts that custom must yield to revealed truth. But what 
‘revealed truth really is we shall presently examine more 
“closely. Meanwhile, even he confesses that another custom 
*‘ was in existence in the Church.’ 

But, there is another objection raised from S. Augustine. 
The rule of faith, they say, is, in his opinion, neither more nor 
Jess than the quintessence of Holy Scripture. ‘“‘ Those words 
“(of the rule of faith or creed) which you have heard, are 
‘scattered over the pages of Holy Scripture, but have been 
“‘sathered together into one (symbol) to aid the memory of 
“‘slow-minded people.”® But this simply means that Augus- 
tine, like other Fathers, takes for granted that Tradition and 
Scripture are in acccrd on the essential articles of faith. It 
does not follow that in their eyes the creed was but an extract 
and summary from Scripture, though it was an epitome of the 
truths of faith, which are expanded in Scripture. The symbol 
of faith, as Cassian remarks, is indeed a short compendiwn of 
the two testaments, of the whole law of God, containing the 
whole meaning of the Scriptures. It comprises exactly that 


63 See Reiter, Augustin. Studien 1887, p. 307. Theol. Liter. Zeitg. 1887, Nr. 15 

64 De Bapi. IIl. 6. EZ. 38. 

65 Sermo 213. Cf. Faustus Reg., De Sfr7. Prefat. Cassianus, De /ucarn. vi. 3. 
Isid., De Offic. 11, 22, Kubn, 7heo/. Quart. 1858, p. 415. Cyrill. Hier., Catech. 
Vv. 32. 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 385 


which suffices to make a Christian ; it is the basis and key to 
all further progress in Christian knowledge—clawis Scripturae. 
28. Hence Cyril of Jerusalem, too, requires first of all that 
the faithful should firmly believe in their hearts the creed of 
the Church. He then promises to show, on another and more 
suitable occasion, how the truths of the creed are contained in 
the sacred Scriptures. “Lav hold on that faith which the 
“Church hath delivered to thee, and Scripture hath ratified.” 
When, therefore, he says that this compendium is taken from 
the entire Scripture, inasmuch as the chief truths have been 
selected and put together, he means nothing more than that it 
is in complete conformity with Scripture, He occupies the same 
standpoint with regard to Scripture a3 the Church has ever 
occupied even till this day. The Bible serves for prov:ng and 
confirming her teaching, and for giving a deeper insight into its 
truths. But the creed is the Christian’s Vade M/ecum, and 
ecclesiastical Tradition the source and formal principle of faith. 
29. The instruction of Catechumens did not begin with 
Holy Scripture, but with an ex;lanation of the several articles 
in the Apostle’s Creed. Faitn came by hearing, and hearing 
by preaching, which consisted in setting forth the Church’s 
living belief in the Creed. Before beginning his exposition of 
the Creed, Cyril pointedly observes: ‘‘ But before I deliver to 
‘you the faith, I think it will be to the purpose to give a brief 
“summary of the necessary articles of faith.” And in con- 
clusion he says: ‘This we are taught by the inspired Scriptures 
“of the Old and New Testaments.” ‘‘ But learn from the 
‘Church which are the books of the Old, and which of the New 
“Testament.” ‘Read the two and twenty books of these 
“ Scriptures ; and have nothing to do with the uncertain books. 
“These only study earnestly, which we read confidently even in 
“the Church. Far-wiser than thou, and more devout, were 


66 Catech. v. 1. 
67 Catech. iv. 3, 33, 35- Aug. Fp. Fund. c 5. Cf. Joann. Damascen., De /mag. 
Or. iii. 41. 


386 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 


“the Apostles and ancient bishops, the rulers of the Church who 
“have handed down these :.thou, therefore, who art a child of 
“the Church, trench not on their sanctions.” This agrees with 
S. Augustine’s famous aphorism: “I would not believe the 
“Gospel unless the Church’s authority moved me thereto.” 
Hase, indeed, thinks he has taken the sting out of this saying 
by covering it with ridicule. He remarks: ‘‘ Here we may read 
‘* between the lines what was later on exaggerated into a Roman 
‘article of faith (where ? when ?), namely: without the pope I 
“should nct value the Bib!e above the Koran.” ® But the 
phrase only shows that Augustine, like the other Fathers, 
notwithstanding his high appreciation of the deep mysteries 
buried in God’s word, required an infallible authority to vouch 
both for its genuineness and interpretation. Such an authority 
was to be found nowhere but in the Church. Faith, without 
visible authority, was unknown to the ancients, for it could not 
but rest on the shifting sands of human opinion. And Holy 
Scripture by itself could not be that authority, neither has it 
ever passed current as such. * 
| 30. Holy Scripture was held in the highest esteem. But 
then it was the Scripture of the Church; the Scripture that 
was given to her to guard and explain; it was the instrument 


6  P. Cz. 

* It is a fundemental article of faith with Protestants that Scripture is the soles ource 
and rule of faith. This is the theory, but not the practice. Protestants are brought 
up and trained to believe the few revealed truths that form their creed, in exactly 
the same way as Catholics, namely by the principie of tradition. The Scripture 
principle is a practical impossibility. Asa matter of mere history we know that 
Protestants have founded, as they were bound to do, their own communions and 
churches more or less int imitation of the Catholic, have adopted a creed, symbolical 
confessions, articles of faith, and proposed certain books as the inspired word of 
God. But by doing so they practically exercised authority, and made tradition 
the basis of operations. Then they proceeded in theory to deny that authority and 
tradition, and to set up the Scriptures as the vital principle of their Church and 
Churches. This self-stultifying process constitutes the cssence of Protestantism. 
Theory and practice stand in glaring and flagrant contradiction. It is the hugest 
fraud ever imposed upon the human mind. In vain, for three hundred years, 

. Catholics have pointed out the inconsistency and hollowness of the system. It was 
reserved for the critical school, with its keen and incisive weapons, to show that 
the Bible is not a vital principle excepr m the Catholic Churca. For the Bible, 
like the soul, isa vital principle only in tue boty to which it naturally belongs. 
** What God hath joined together, let no man putas dez.” (Tr.) 


SCRIFTURE AND TRADITION. 387 


of her teaching, as Tertullian has it, so that by its means she 
might build up the faith with greater facility, and endow it with 
greater riches. The praise bestowed by the Fathers on Scripture, 
applies to Scripture as in harmony with, not in opposition 
to, the ecclesiastical teaching. If, since the days of Clement, 
many holy Fathers have unreservedly exhorted the faithful to 
read Holy Scripture, and have assented to all that the New 
Testament says about the benefits to be derived from reading 
the Old; if again, the Greek translations of the Old Testa- 
ment, and the Latin of both Old and New were rendered 
into the vernacular; what, then? The principle of Tradition 
is not thereby in the least compromised. For, both before 
and since, Tradition was the well-head and rule of faith. 
Instruction and preaching in the Church’s faith was the starting- 
point, and instruction in Holy Scripture followed. Translations 
notwithstanding, the Sacred Scriptures were not the common 
property of the multitude of the faithful, since very few knew 
how to read. The translation into the vernacular—if Greek, 
as the universal language of the educated, and Latin as the 
language of the Roman Empire can be so called—were under- 
taken chiefly in order to render the Scriptures accessible to the 
Western Church for liturgical purposes. Very few Fathers 
understood Hebrew, and in some Western provinces just as 
few were conversant with Greek. Even the African Fathers, 
Augustine included, had not perfectly mastered it. 

But, considering the dearth of literature, how could these 
translations have served the purpose of propagating the faith ? 
How many manuscripts found their way into private hands ? 
Was, there, a British and Foreign Bible Society in those days? 
Lessing, in his great controversy with Goze, who wanted 
to saddle the Middle Ages with ignorance of the Bible, 
says, “the codices of the New Testament grew apace 
“with time. In the first and second centuries such codices 
“ were very scarce, so scarce that entire communities possessed 


69 Werke, vi. 603 


388 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 


‘“but one copy which the presbyters kept under lock and 
““key,and which no one was allowed to read without their 
““leave.’’ ‘“‘ Thestubborn fact is that the Bible never came 
““into the hands of the common folk before the ninth cen- 
““tury. They knew just as much and no more about it than 
‘“the clergy chose to teach them.’’ After the canon had 
been fixed, the Church’s mode of teaching was more closely 
bound up with Holy Scripture, which then came to be re- 
garded, in so far as it was attested and explained by oral 
Tradition, as the first and foremost fount of revealed truth. 
The people gained their knowledge of it from sermons and 
instructions. The very Fathers who, in some passages, 
mention Scripture alone as God’s word, elsewhere speak of 


Tradition in similar terms. They looked upon the two as . 


inseparable, and as giving expression to the same divine 
truth that was preached from the beginning.” 

31. This was shown very clearly in the Arian Contro- 
versy. Arius was a disciple of Lucian of Antioch.” From 
the School of Antioch he learnt logical formalism and the 
system of literal and grammatical exegesis. The rise and 
spread of Gnosticism had compelled the teachers in the 
Church to cultivate sacred exegesis with greater care and 
assiduity. Hence arose the great schools of Antioch and 
Alexandria. But the method of the latter school, namely 
the allegorical system of interpretation, was ill suited to 
cope with an adversary, such as Arius,.trained in the school 
of Antioch. Any one who will not shrink from the labour of 
comparing S. Athanasius’ controversial writings against the 
Arians with his exposition of the Psalms will perceive how 
very different isthe method employed in thetwo. Against 
the Arians, he was bound to give ascientific explanation of 
Scripture based on the faith of the Church, while the Psalms 
left him free scope for drawing practical applications. It was 
only with great reluctance that the Council of Nicaea adopt- 
ed a non-biblical phrase (dwocvatos) into the Creed. Only 


7o See Kleutgen, 7heologie der Vorzett, III. 958. 


71 Kihn, Theodor von Mopsuestia, p. 13. Harnack, i. 598. Petavius, Prodeg. iii. x. 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 389 


when the Fathers saw that the Eusebians were cloaking Arian 
ideas with biblical phraseology, did they determine upon a 
formula, whith, though not couched in the letter of Scripture, 
efectually clipped the wings of heresy.7* ‘Their first business 
was, not to elaborate the faith from Scripture, but to define 
and formulate in unequivocal terms the Church’s teaching. A 
formula composed of Scripture words would doubtless have 
been preferable, because Scripture was, at that time, the common 
ground between the Arians and the Church, whereas the early 
heretics, as a rule, called in question the books of the Canon. 
The same method had likewise to be applied against later 
heretics, The more heretics set their face agatnst precise 
definitions and fell back on Scriptural generalities, the more 
painstaking were the efforts made by the Fathers to fence the 
faith round with definite terms and formule, and, at the same 
time, to defend it by the books of Scripture. Hence the 
Injunction given by Pseudo Dionysius not to think about the 
supernatural and hidden Godhead anything that is not divinely 
expressed in Scripture.” 

32,051 hits method of using Scripture did not begin with 
Niczea, and it is quite gratuitous to say that from this time 
onward there was a change of front in the principle of Tradi- 
tion. The Ante-Nicene Christians, despite the rule of faith, set 
great store by Scripture; the Post Nicene Christians, despite 
their great esteem for Scripture, held fast to the rule of 
faith. The principle is one and the same,—the Church’s living 
magisterium, and the infallibility of the Church’s teaching 
office, which has from the beginning upheld and guaranteed the 
unity and purity of faith, ‘The same Athanasius who declares 
that “the sacred Scriptures are sufficient to teach truth,” says 
immediately afterwards: ‘‘ The Scriptures are, indeed, sufficient, | 
‘and preach the truth without fail. But there are also many 
“other works, bearing on them, composed by our saintly 


g2 Mohler, Athanasius, i. 233. Hefele, i. 307. 
93 De Div. Nom.c.%. S. Thom. i. q. xxix. a. 3. ad. v3 q. xxxii. a. 25 q. xxXxix. as @ 


390 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 


“teachers, from which the reader may learn to interpret Scrip- 
“ture, and may acquire the knowledge of the truth he is 
“seeking.”*t No one who calls to mind his judgment on 
Arius and heretics generally for misusing Scripture,’® will feel 
inclined to rank bim with the partisans of the Scripture principle 
as against Tradition. Even the devil’s mouth, he says, is 
honeyed with Scripture phrases in order to dupe and mislead. 
men. 

33. Eusebius of Emesa (350) is also paraded as an advo- 
cate of the Scripture principle. ‘“ What need is there,” he asks, 
“of you and me? Let us. look to the evangelists, Believe 
“what is written of the Father and Son, and pry not curiously 
“into what is not written. Oh! that we would rest satisfied 
‘with Scripture! Then controversy and strife would be at an 
‘end! For what, then, may we search? For that wh'ch is in 
“Scripture.” 76 What more is here said than that men should 
eschew the sterile subtleties that were then agitating the East? 
Nay, if we bear in mind that Eusebius was on the Arian side, 
his words may perhaps imply a suppressed taunt that the 
Catholic Church did not recognize the one-sided principle of 
Scripture ! 

34. Nor is the statement of S. Augustine more to the point 
than the preceding passages, especially when viewed in the 
context. He says: “ Whoever takes another meaning out of 
“scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not 
“through any falsehood in scripture . . . For if he takes 
“up rashly a meaning which the author whom he is reading 
“did not intend, he often falls in with other statements ‘which 
‘he cannot harmonize with this meaning. And if he admits 
‘that these statements are true and certain, then it follows that 
“the meaning he had put upon the former passage cannot be 


94 Adv. Gent. Cote 
75 C. Arian I. 8. 


76 Thilo, Uber die Schrifien des Ewsebius von Alex. und Emesa. Halle 1832. p. 73, 
Hasz, p. 64. 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 391 


“a true one: and so it comes to pass, one can hardly tell how, 
“that, out of love for his own opinion, he begins to feel more 
‘“‘angry with scripture than he is with himself. And if he 
“should once permit that evil to creep in, it will utterly destroy 
“him. ‘ or we walk by faith, not by sight? Now faith will 
“ totter, if the authority of scripture begin to shake. And then 
“if faith totter, love itself will grow cold . . . And so 
“these are the three things to which all knowledge and all 
“prophecy are subservient; faith, hope, love .... And 
** thus a man who ts resting upon faith, hope and love, and who 
“keeps a firm hold upon these, does not need the Scriptures except 
“for the purpose of instructing others. Accordingly many live 
“without copies of the Sciptures, even in solitude, on the strength 
“of these three graces.” ™ Augustine, as we see, demurs to 
scripture interpretation based on private opinion, even of men 
of learning such as S. Jerome. He holds that a man with faith, 
hope and charity, has no need of scripture except to instruct 
others. And does he not give to commentators this advice: 
in doubt to consult the rule of faith that they have learnt from 
clear passages of scripture, and the authority of the Catholic 
Church ?78 Finally, why does he reject the Apocrypha? Was 
it merely because their authors deserve n> credit? or was it 
rather because they contain false statements ‘‘which the 
‘Catholic and Apostolic rule of faith and sound doctrine 
* condemn P” 79 

35. The fact is that statements such as the above are as 
true in the Catholic Church to-day, as they were in the time 
ef S. Augustine. Their meaning is clear. Faith in Scripture 
will waver, only if faith in the authority of the Church falters, 
Again, Scripture is all-sufficient, for two reasons; first because 
it testifies to the authority of the Church as the formal principle 
of our faith, and secondly because it contains all the cardinal 
and central doctrines of Christianity. These are clearly and 
97- De Docir. Christ. i. 37. Ep. 19 (82), Hase, p. 67. 


98 De Doctr. Christ. ii. 8; iii. 2 Cf. C. Faust. xxvii. 2. 4. 6 
99 De Cons. Evangel. i. 1, 2. See Aberle-Schanz, p. 287. Petav., Prod. iis 43 


392 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, 


unmistakeably set forth in Holy Scripture. For this reason 
the Fathers in establishing them as “ ver/tas evangelica et 
*€ ahostolica,” would naturally draw their proofs from Scripture.® 
But did they so act in other points that were either not contained 
in Seripture at all, or not so clearly? Certainly not. Thus 
Augustine was at great pains to show that his doctrine of grace 
had always held sway in East and West. For the West his 
standard authorities were Cyprian and Ambrose, Cyprian shows 
that “as our faith is the true, nay, the Christian and Catholic 
“faith,” and ‘fas it was of old transmitted in the Scriptures, 
‘so, when heretics sought to undermine it, it was steadfastly 
“maintained and preserved by our fathers, and with God’s 
*‘ srace will be so preserved in the future.” %! He refers Julian 
to the answer given by Innocent I. which contains what the 


Apostolic See, the Roman and other Churches have held from 


the beginning. 


LVi THE POST-NICENE AGE. 


36. Apart from the few isolated passages quoted to the - 


‘contrary, it will not be a difficult task to show that the principle 
of Tradition dominated the post-Nicene and subsequent periods. 
To this end we cannot forbear to quote once more Lessing’s 
reply to Goze: “It is wholly undeniable that oral Tradition was 
“at one time the only source of truth; and it is absolutely 
“impossible to fix a time when it not merely became a secondary 
“source, but when it ceased to be a source at all.” ® In giving 
particular proofs we are embarrassed which passages to choose 
from out of the multitude. d¢Aanasius, in laying down the 
doctrine De Spiritu Sancto, says: * Let us, likewise, turn our 
“eyes towards Tradition and the teaching that was from the 
“beginning, and the faith of the Catholic Church, [to know 
“the doctrine] which the Lord has given, which the Apostles 
“have announced, and the Fathers preserved ; for it is founded 
“upon the Church, and whoever falls away from it, can no 


80 Petav., Prol. i. ro: Langen, Kirchenviter, p. 10. 
81 C. Duas Epp. Pelag. ad Bonif. iv. 1a. Op. Limp. c. Jul. i. ry 


A 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, 393 


Jonger be or be called a Christian.”® And Gregory of Nyssa 
observes: ‘*To prove our doctrine we have only to point to 
“the Tradition of the Fathers, which, being a legacy from the 
“ Apostles, has come down to us through successive generations 
“ of saints.” Chrysosfom, the great panegyrist and exponent of 
Scripture, says: ‘“‘We may believe that all the teaching of the 
* Apostles was not done by letter, and that they taught much 
“ without the Scriptures. So let us also believe in the Church’s 
“Tradition. It is Tradition. Ask no more questions.” 

How did the Emperor Theodosius proceed, when he wished 
to uphold the legality of the Zatrocinium? He did not dare to 
defend his action in any other way but by making an express 
appeal to Tradition. The most reverend man (Leo) ought 
to know “that we have not swerved in any one point from 
“the religion and tradition of our forefathers. Our only wish 
“is to preserve intact the mysteries bequeathed by Tradition 
“to our Fathers. And hence, seeing that some Churches were 
‘“‘ooing astray after shameful innovations, we decided to hold 
a Synod in Ephesus.” 

37.% The Commonitorium of §. Vincent of Lerins (d. about 
450) contains a summary of the Church’s teaching. He lays 
down the proposition that the true faith is known, first by the 
authority of the divine law, and then by the tradition of the 
Catholic Church. As a guide to the latter ke gives the canon: 
“ Ouod semper, quod ubique, guod ab omnibus traditum est” 
That is to say, tradition is established from the writings of the 
early Fathers, those at least who, persevering in the Catholic 
faith and Church, have in every age and clime been recognized 
as teachers; who, in her communion, lived helily, taught wisely, 
and persevered with constancy, and either died peacefully in 
Christ, or were privileged to lay down their lives for His sake.® 
83 Ep. 7. ad Serap. n. 28. Kuhn, Theol. Quart. 1858, p. 432. Franzelin, De Trad. 


p. 214. Gregor. Nyss., C. Eunom. ive 653 (Migne) Chrys., dm df Lihess 
Flom. iv. ad il. 14. 


84 Lp. Leonis 62. 
Bs Common. c. 39. See M. Canus, III. 4 Petav., Prod. Il @ 


394 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, 


Now, strange to say, in modern times, this very canon has 
been enlisted in the service of the foes of ecclesiastical Tradi- 
tion. They contend that, in her most recent decisions, the 
Catholic Church has distinctly broken through this general 
traditionary principle, that nothing is ever to be believed but 
what has been taught always, everywhere, and by all exp/icitly 
and distinctly. But this cannot be the meaning intended by 
Vincent, for the simple reason that he, more than any other 
Father, insists upon the necessity of doctrinal development in 
the Church; and development supposes that certain revealed 
doctrines are but implicitly and obscurely contained in the 
deposit ; or, again, that new aspects and new relations of old 
truths may be brought to light.* The controversy between 
Augustine and the Semipelagians fully convinced him that 
something more was required than mere extracts from the 
Fathers. There is another reason why S. Vincent could not 
have understood his canon in that way. If nothing is to be 
believed but what is semper et ubigue et ab omnibus traditum, 
there was no need for a rule or guide, because what is so handed 
down cannot be unknown, but must be plain and evident to 
all. The universality of time and place, therefore, which the 
saint had in view, could not be an absolute, but only a relative 
one. Catholicism, of course, has an inherent tendency towards 
universality ;8° and wherever this actually exists, it is a certain 
proof of the truth, Whence it follows that the theological 
student will be guided by that principle, and prefer the more 
universal to the less. As a matter of fact the Vincentian 
Canon, as it stands, is a general affirmative proposition, and 
logicians tell us that it cannot be converted into a general 
negative. 

Vincent himself gives a clue to the explanation, when he 
answers the question: What is man to do, if some renounce 
their allegiance to the Church? In sucha case his advice is, 


@6 M.Canus, Zc. Scheeben, I. 146.150. Kleutgen, I. 75. Franzelin, dc. p. 284 seq. 
* See our remarks in the Preface to this volume. Tr. 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 395 


to abide by the majority,* by the Church. And in these words 
he makes the source and the rule of faith join hands. Tradition 
objectively considered, as maintained by the majority [relative 
universality] is the source of faith, but the living authority of 
the Church is the guide, criterium, and rule of faith. She 
decides what is the Tradition of the past; she is the true 
witness of what was and is in her consciousness. Hence only 
th se Fathers can truly witness to Tradition who are in commu- 
nion with her. In the same way, it belongs to the Church, he 
says, to interpret Holy Scripture ; her faith, her mind is the key 
to the understanding of Scripture. In itself the latter is perfect 
and all-sufficient ; but owing to its depth and difficulty, it is 
exposed to different interpretations, and consequently requires 
a sure and unerring interpreter. Such is the mens ef sensus 
Lcclesia 81 

He delivers himself, not less lucidly, on the relations subsisting 
between Councils and Tradition; “ What object has the Church 
“in holding Councils, but to give definiteness to her faith in 
“that which she previously believed indeterminately? to preach 
“ with zeal what had hitherto been preached sluggishly? to 
“ develop with care what had hitherto been wrapped in the 
“stillness of simple belief? This, I say, and none other, has 
“been the goal towards which the Catholic Church, spurred on 
“by heretics, has ever been pressing forward in her conciliar 
“ decrees. What she had received from her ancestors by 
“ Tradition, she expressed in written documents for the sake of 
“ posterity, comprising many things ina few words, not imparting 
‘6a new sense to the doctrines of faith, but, for the sake of 
“ clearer understanding, fixing the old meaning by a xeze term.” 
S, Vincent, then, is perfectly consistent with himself and in 


87 Common. Cc. 2, 32, 33- 


* So also S. Augustine, de Doctrina Christ. ii. 8: ‘‘ In the Canonical Scriptures, let 
‘him follow the authority of as many Catholic Churches as he can ascertain, and 
‘¢ among these, such to whom it has been vouchsafed to have Apostolic Sees, and 
“ receive their Epistles. In those Scriptures which are not received of all, let him 
“prefer those received by the greater number, and the weightier authorities & 
‘“ those held by the fewer and less weighty.” Zr 


396 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 


complete accord with the Catholic principle both of devel- 
opment, and of Tradition. 

38. Whenitisa question of searching into Tradition and 
finding out what belongs to it and what does not, we have 
to distinguish with S. Augustine between the negative and 
the positive element in Tradition. In his remarks on In- 
fant Baptism, he says that in Scripture he can find in its 
favour naught but a conjecture borrowed from its type— 
circumcision. But to any one requiring a convincing proof 
he thus addresses himself : ‘‘ That which the entire Church 
‘' firmly holds, and has not been introduced by any council, 
‘‘ but has always been held, is most justly believed to have 
‘‘ been handed down from the Apostles.’’ ® This principle* 
was often invoked and applied in the so called argument 
of prescription. The proof from Tradition holds good in 
the case of any doctrine or institution of universal stand- 
ing in the Church, that cannot be shewn to have sprung up 
at any one time in opposition to existing doctrines, although 
equally complete and certain positive testimony is not forth- 
coming from all periods. To take another instance, in the 
controversy about heretical baptism. Several African Syn- 
ods, held under Cyprian’s auspices, and also several 
Synods in Asia, had declared in favour of re- baptism. 
Here, then, custom was pitted against custom, and tradi- 
tion against tradition. But Augustine was able to shew 
that the tradition in favour of the validity of heretical bap- 
tisin was of immemorial antiquity, and that the universal 
Church had ever steadfastly adhered to it. 

39. In the preceding pages we have frequently al- 
luded to the fact that the Fathers laid special stress on 
the principle of Tradition in matters concerning divine 
worship and the sacred Liturgy. The ‘‘ confirming cus- 
tom” [consuetudo confirmatrix] of which Tertullian 
and Cyprian speak, was, and continued to be, all-pow- 
erful. In the later Greek Church, which is “‘ fre liturgi- 
‘cal Church,”’ the principle was not only maintained, but 


88 De Bape, iv. 24. 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 397 


stretched beyond all due limits. Its unbending rigidity has 
tended to fossilize worship, and stiffen the sinews of religious 
life. From among the many testimonies that might be quoted,*? 
we will limit ourselves to a few. S. Basv/ treats this point very 
fully. ‘Of the Church’s mysteries and doctrines, some we get 
“from the written word, others we have received from the 
“tradition of the Apostles, who surely handed them to us. But 
“both have an equal religious force. This no one will deny 
“who has had the least experience in ecclesiastical matters. 
‘For if we maintain that unwritten usages are less potent, we 
“are unwittingly wounding the Gospel in the heart, nay we are 
« dwarfing and crinkling the Gospel itself into a mere name.” 
After instancing many such usages in the Eucharist, Baptism 
and Prayer, he continues: “Time would fail me were I to set 
“forth in order the Church’s unwritten mysteries.” These 
words are written by the same Basil who in a Homily against 
the Anti-Trinitarians says: “Believe what is written; enquire 
“not after what is not written.”9! he also made Holy Scripture 
umpire between the Catholic and Arian doctrine, because 
custom was pitted againt custom. 

40. The Afostolic Constitutions, as the name implies, are 
concerned with the Apostolic deposit in matters affecting 
ecclesiastical order and discipline, as well as liturgy. Even 
though they be not the work of the Apostles, and though, in 
the present form, they be the outcome of long experience 
and development, still they give the groundwork of ancient 
discipline according to the earliest sources, For the better 
maintenance of discipline, the ancient councils promulgated 
Canons, laying down principles to meet varying circumstances 
in time and place, and building up in detail the constitution of 
the Church. Although these Canons weré not irreformable, 


8> See Probst, Liturgie, p. €; Kuhn, p. 435. Laugen, Kirchenviater, p. Je 

go De Spir. c. 27. n. 66. 6y. 71. See Nirschl, Patrolegie, ii, 171. Kuhn, p. 438 
437. Hieron., Adv. Lucif n. 7. 8. 

9x Off. si. 611. The passage is considered as not genuine by Garnier, cf. EZ. 139 
3 (Ppp. iii. 277.} 


398 : SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 


still the Church would be loath to deviate from them, especially 
as they date back to the Apostolic age. Leo the Great, when 
rejecting Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, over and over 
again appealed to the injunctions of the Holy Canons ot 
Niczwa ; for he saw, once the sacred ordinances of the Fathers 
were by a tittle transgressed, that an ecclesiastical regulation 
would be exposed to the same corroding influence.% 

41. From this some have concluded that the Fathers chiefly 
viewed Tradition as supplementing Holy Scriptures, and this 
only in minor and subsidiary points, such as those of liturgy. 
According to what we have said above on the principle itseif, 
this is not only generally incorrect, but demonstrably false in the 
particular matter of liturgy. For liturgy was intimately bound 
up with faith, The ceremonies and prayers used in Baptism 
and the Eucharist contain the belief in the reality of the 
sacraments ; the baptismal formula embodies the chief dogma 
of the Church. Augustine’s saying ‘Lex supplicandi est norma 
eredenat” holds good in a still greater degree for important 
liturgical acts of worship. From the exorcisms used in Infant 
Baptism, Augustine deduces belief in original sin; from the 
prayers sanctioned by the Church, asking God’s grace to begin 
a work, arose Celestine’s faith in preventing grace. And no one 
can fail to see how instinctively the old Liturgy explains our 
Lord’s words of institution at the last supper. 

S. Basil distinctly points out his correction between faith and 
liturgy. Like Tertullian he views the use of the Creed at 
Baptism not as a ceremony but as a confession of faith in the 
Trinty If nothing but what stands in Scripture is received, 
“then neither will this the doxology Glona P. et F. cum 
“Spiritu S., as proving the divinity of the Holy Ghost be 
“received But if most mysteries (i.e., the Church’s important 
‘*ceremonies and actions) are received (on traditional grounds), 
‘without being contained in Scripture, this may also be received 
“in conjunction with many other things. I consider it Apostolic 


ge LEpist. 107. cf. 104, 35 106, 3, & 


~ a P 


~ 
€ 


a Veet 
yp = 
~ 


oa 


- 


ee, Sea ee Ses _——,. - ft eee ena 


ee ey ae 
ee 


he aractietinel 


Pere eer; en i A 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. _ 399 


“J, Cor. x1, 3; II. Thess. u. 14) to hold also to unwritten 
Traditions.” %° 

42. To us it seems labour lost to pursue -the proof any 
further. The Scholastics occupy the same position as the 
Fathers,*f and there is nothing new to add. Nay, it is now 
generally conceded that “for more than a thousand years 
“Scripture and Tradition stood peaceably side by side in the 
Catholic Church, Tradition taking under its capacious wing 
“ doctrines of faith as well as religious customs and ceremonies; 
“things old and new (!) In fact it coincided with the authority 
“of the Church itself.”% Gratian assigns to ‘Tradition, 
sanctioned by the Church, the same authority as to Scripture.% 
At times it may have happened that, in this or that instance, an 
appeal to Apostolic Tradition was made hastily and without 
sufficient warrant, because the knowledge of antiquity was for a 
long time rather defective. Even in the Fathers we sometimes 
meet with uncertain appeals. But these trifles do not affect the 
stability of the principle on which they rest. The principle 
itself stands firm and anmoved. It is universally recognized that 
Apostolic Tradition under the Church’s magisterium, is the 
formal principle of faith; and that the Church frames her 
decisions on Scripture and Tradition as the two founts of faith. 
In the eyes of the Scholastics the authority of Scripture and 
Apostolic Tradition was bounded by the authority of the 
Church. Without that authority the sources of faith themselves 
stand in mid-air. They lack the external credentials. 

43. Nor is there any solid objection from latter ages 
against this universal consent of Fathers and Schoolmen. Will 
Abelard’s Sic e¢ Von, 
Fathers, really or apparently contradictory, are placed in juxta- 
position—overthrow the principle of Tradition? The Fathers, 


a work in which passages from the 


‘indeed, diverge widely from one another in scientific exegesis, 


93 De Spir, c. 29. N. 7% 
94 Schwane, ili. 515. 

95 Hase, p. 67. 

96 Decret. P.1.1b 11.03% 


400 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 


but if, as is reasonable, those only are admitted as witness who 
continued in communion with the Church til] death, not. in 
matters of faith and morals. To understand the Fathers aright 
we must distinguish between the essential and accidental, the 
general and particular. Nor may difference of time be ignored, 
As to medizeval Theologians, none regret Tradition, except such 
as took up a questionable attitude towards the Church. And it 
is quite conceivable that they should have sought to bolster 
up their own weak position by denying or disparaging Church 
authority. Occam, the founder of Nominalism, and Marsilius 
of Padua (A.D, 1328) are instances in point. Others, like Wiclif 
and Hus, went sti!l further. And thus the way was smoothed 
for erecting Scripture into the one source and rule of faith. 


Ve AT THE TIME OF THE REFORMATION AND SINCE. 


44.* The Reformation, says Hase,%7 “based its justification 
“on Holy Scripture. Its one endeavour was to bring the 
“Church back to primitive Christianity. Of course only partial 
“success waited on its efforts, as no phase of human life ever 
“comes back without some change.” Luther set Scripture in 
the balance against all the sayings of the Fathers; it outweighed 
all angels, men, and devils, all art and learning. Still it was 
not Luther’s first intention to lead back the Church to primitive 
Christianity, which itself was not biblical; nor did he mean 
to make the principle of Scripture his guiding star. Rather 
he had already excogitated his doctrine of justification by faith, 
before he looked for it in Holy Scripture. This doctrine, which 
became the material principle of Lutheran faith, rests on a 
single, badly translated, passage in one Epistle (Rom. m1. 28), 
and is quite incompatible with Scripture as a formal principle 
of faith, unless we suppose that Luther was inspired, and that 
Scripture is explained to each one individually by the same _ 
Divine Spirit. But this dream, indulged in for a time, was 
soon dispelled by the number of contradictory interpretations 


97 P. 68. 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 401 


given to such passages as that concerning the institution of the 
Lord’s Supper. 

45. The clearest proof that Holy Scripture, apart from 
Tradition, cannot be the sole formal principle of faith, is to be 
found in the invention and adoption of symbolic confessions. 
These speak louder than all the arguments adduced for the 
sufficientia, perspicuitas, and efficacia of Holy Scripture. For 
they are practically a confession that a coherent doctrine of 
Church-membership cannot be gathered from the Scripture 
principle. We may say that the majority of Protestants have 
abandoned the position originally taken up by their forefathers. 
“That Holy Scripture is not revelation itself, but the herald 
and witness of revealed history ; that the men who wrote the 
“Scriptures, not the Scriptures themselves, are inspired ; that 
‘Scripture cannot be, nor was intended to be God’s infallible 
‘word, in the sense of being an authoritative body of doctrine 


“given by God;” these are “great, self-evident truths, and 


3 
“recognized as such in all biblical science.” 


This contradiction between the material and formal prin- 
ciple is openly admitted. ‘“‘If the evangelical Church had 
‘maintained these principles [i.e., justification by faith alone, 
eandyeocripture the.sole source and. rule of faith|. <9..." 
‘‘in such Catholic fashion that the privilege of Church member- 
“ship depended on their unqualified recognition, it would bea 
‘“mere bastard Catholicism, and not a distinct form of Christi- 
‘“‘anity, as its contention would rest solely on the Catholic 
‘principle, viz.: the infallibility of the Church. But this the 
“Evangelical Church, by the very terms of its existence, has 
‘renounced. Hence this juxtaposition of equal prirciples 
“made it possible, on the one hand, for the material principle 
fe. to. be shelved’ by the formal,, unless it. could bé 
“proved from Holy Scripture; on the other hand, as the 
“ formal principle itself cannot be proved from Scripture, it 


98 Weiss, Theol. Lit, Zeiig. 1884, Nr.19. See Volck, ap Zéckler, I. 652. Kuhn, p. 
40. Linleitung, pp. 52. 68. 94. Heinrich I. 752, Rohm, Cor/fessionelle Gegen- 


$atze, 1. 109. 
ih 


402 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 


‘“must rest on the authority of a Church which makes no 
‘pretensions to infallibility. Thus these two principles 
‘might become contrary one to another.’’® Even Grau, 
who thinks that the Church must stand or fall by the doc- 
trine of justification by faith alone, avows that the formal 
principle cannot consist unless the material principle is de- 
ieved to be correct, and unless the reformed doctrine agrees 
with Holy Scripture.’ 

‘“To reject dogmatic Tradition root and branch as an 
‘article of faith, on the principle that God’s word is found 
‘nowhere but in Holy Scripture™ is not to reject all au- 
‘ thority outside Scripture. For the Reformers, but none 
‘‘ others, with their symbolical books stepped into the place 
‘occupied by Apostolic Tradition and Church authority. 
‘“ Subsequently the Lutheran and Reformed symbols ac- 
‘‘ quired an authority equal to that attaching (to the three 
“oldest symbols). Of course this came about in the sup- 
““ position that they were in accord (with Holy Scripture). 
‘’ But the supposition soon faded out of sight, and the idea 
‘’ that Scripture could by any possibility have been in any 
" way erroneously interpreted in the symbols never crossed 
‘““people’s minds. And thus, in Catholic fashion, an au- 
‘’ thentic ecclesiastical interpretation was placed side by 
‘ side with Scripture.’’ 

46. Hase will have it that it was now for the first time, 
and in consequence of the Lutheran position, that the 
Roman Church became fully conscious of the vast signifi- 
cance of Tradition. Now, he says, she fully realized ‘ that 
‘to surrender infallible Tradition would be suicidal ; for 
‘all the doctrines against which the Reformers protested 
‘“as abuses and innovations, derived their divine right 
‘from Tradition.’’ But was not the situation exactly the 


99 Hase, Hutterus Redtv. 9 ed. 1858, p. 13. See Simar, Theologie des h. Paulus. 
Freiburg, 1883, p. 2, note 1. Déllinger, Kirche, p. 427. Ritschl, Rechtfertigungs- 
lehre. II. 363. Beck, Er&lar. des Briefes a. d. Rimer. 1884, 1. 307. Weizsacker, 
A postol. Zeitalter, pp. 101, 121, 439. 

' 100 Lvangelische Geschichte, Il. 19. ap. Zockler, I. 551. ; 

tor Art. Smale. 1.17. Hase, Polemik, p. 69. Formul. Concord, Proem.1. Confess. 

Flelvet. WI. 1. Strauss, Glaubenslehre, TV. 111. 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, 403 


same when Gnosticism arose? Have not Irenzus and Ter- 
tullian asserted in so many words that the Church’s Tradi- 
tion is divine? Has not Augustine emphatically declared 
that the authority of the Caiholic Church safeguards the 
canon and exegesis, ecclesiastical usages and discipline ? 
So convinced were men in the Middle Ages that the Church 
possessed infallible authority to teach, that they felt no 
need to offer special proof for it, or to explain the sources 
of faith more minutely. They drew their faith from the 
Church’s living conscious faith, which, as was considered 
self-evident, tallied with the Apostolic faith. And as the 
Gnostics, in their own peculiar way, had helped to build up 
the Canon and systematic Theology, so the Reformers were 
the occasion of a more precise proof from history for the 
source and rule of faith. But they gave occasion for this 
not merely by protesting against doctrines and Tradition, 
but by undermining the whole fabric of Church doctrine by 
their exclusive Scriptural principle. The doctrines of 
justification, good works, the Church and the Sacraments, 
were no mere ecclesiastical customs, but the fundamental 
dogmas of the Christian faith. 

47. “ Even as late as the time of the Council of Trent,” 
Hase further remarks, ‘‘ bishops rose and characterized as 
godless ‘‘ the attempt to place Tradition on an equal author- 
ity with “‘ Scripture.’’’*? Thereby he wishes to insinuate that 
the contrary practice prevailed in earlier times. And yet 
he declaims against the neglect of Scripture in the Middle 
Ages, and remarks, almost in the same breath, that Scrip- 
ture and Tradition had stood side by side in the Catholic 
Church over a thousand years! The isolated expression 
quoted above is not, however, of much importance, as 
the Bishop of Chioggia, who uttered it, withdrew it in 
the same session. Probably it was aimed only at Tra- 
dition in disciplinary matters. Sarpi has quoted it, 
not as used by a bishop, but as a Lutheran proposi- 
tion, against which the Council framed its decrees. Any- 
how it was without influence on the Synodal decree. Nay 
toz Pallavicini xi. 14,4. See Speil, Die Lehren der Kath. Kirche, 1865, p. 65. 


404 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, 


all the members were shocked and filled with indignation 
against such unheared of language. Not “by the pressure of 
“circumstances,” but “by the logical consequence of the 
“principle of Tradition which had ever been in force in the 
“Church, the Synod was driven to issue the decree,” which 
puts Tradition in matters of faith and morals on an equal 
footing with Scripture. For Tradition: proceeded from the 
mouth of Christ to the Apostles through the Holy Spirit, 
and, has been, as it were, handed down from age to age in 
unbroken succession down to the present time. These 
Traditions, not contained in Scripture, refer to truth and dis- 
cipline, to faith and morals, and are partly dogmatic and partly 
disciplinary in their nature. The Council of Trent names 
Apostolic Traditions, and Traditions that come immediately 
from Christ; but it regards the former as emanating from the 
Holy Spirit working in the Apostles. Bellarmine, too, distin- 
guishes between divine, Apostolic, and ecclesiastical Traditions. 
M. Canus instances as ‘I'raditions not clearly expressed in 
Scripture: Mary’s perpetual virginity, Christ’s descent into hell, 
Infant Baptism, Transubstantiation, the Liliogue, the consub- 
stantiality and the relations of the three divine persons to one 
another, As doctrines neither clearly nor obscurely expressed 
in Scripture he instances: the words of consecration in the 
Mass, the veneration and intercession of Saints, communion 
under both kinds, and the conferring Confirmation and Holy 
Order but once; the reception of the Canon without werrant 
from Scripture. In developing the proof for the Apostolicity 
of a Tradition, he draws a distinction between dogmatic and 
disciplinary Traditions. As an illustration of the latter, he gives 
the decree of the Apostolic Council. Purely ecclesiastical 
Traditions belong to this Category. 

48.* The Reformers proceeded with strange inconsistency. 
Many ‘Vraditions purely ecclesiastical and liakte to change (e.g., 
feasts and portions from the liturgy), they rete iaed, but regurded 


103 Sess. iv. cf. Bellarm. De Verto Dei. iv. 3 M. Cam» © 


2 Oo" > 


wath 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, 405 


them as human institutions. Next they rejected Tradi- 
tions, closely bound up with faith, such as the doctrines 
of Purgatory, indulgences, veneration of saints, and many 
Traditions anent the Sacraments, while retaining others, 
e.g., Infant Baptism. 

49. Hase, hoWever, contends that both Churches have 

acted consistently with their principle in regard to Tradi- 
tion as a rule of faith : Protestants allow its Aéstortcal value, 
and pass judgment on its reliability . . . while Catholics 
protect it from the fate that awaits all things human with 
the shield of Church infallibility. So far he is right. But 
then he goes on to infer that the Church is able to shield 
with infallible wisdom much that is either not contained 
in Scripture at all, or only hinted at, or even tejectedamin 
this he is very much mistaken. For the one thing that is 
clearly set forth in Holy Writ is the institution of the 
Church, and the perpetuity of the Apostolate (principle ot 
Tradition) to teach the faith to all nations. Moreover, he 
does not seem to realize the exact and full meaning of an 
infallible Tradition. What is really infallible, is not the 
Tradition, but the Church, its organ. As Christ was in- 
fallible, so by His gift were the Apostles, and so is the 
Church for all time. Hence, there can be only a formal 
difference between the Tradition of one age and that of 
another. 
_ 50. We have already stated in the chapter on the infalli- 
bility of the Church, that Catholic Tradition includes two 
elements, a human and a divine; neither can displace nor 
dispense with the other, but one perfects the other, Hence 
we have said, that tradition, even when viewed from a 
human and merely historical standpoint, offers the strong- 
est possible human guarantee. The unity of the faithful 
among themselves; their esteem and reverence for the 
faith, i.e. the word of God; the watchfulness that the 
Licclesta Docens and the faithful, and the several communi- 
ties exercise over one another; the way in which most 
of the truths of faith are translated into action in practical 
105 Mohler, Symbolik, p. 371, 


406 SCRIPTUR® AND TRADITION, 


life and in the liturgy; all these are most efficacious means for 
preserving Tradition pure and undefiled. For here there is no 
question of difficnlt and complicated problems, but of the 
simple summary of Christian truths that live in the heart 
of the faithful, and are enshrined in the symbols and writ- 
ings of the Fathers. “In this one article,” (concerning 
the person of Christ), says Kepler, “ the sayings and proofs of 
“the. old Fathers are of greater value to me than the explanation 
“of the [Protestant] formulas of agreement.” His appeal to the 
teaching and faith of the early Fathers led him to reject the 
Reformation. He preferred excommunication to professing a 
doctrine that, he was convinced, contradicted Scripture and 
Tradition.’ ‘We would willingly,” says a modern Theologian, 
“be in agreement with the ancient Church. And from the 
“first the Fathers of the Lutheran Church sought to establish 
“their connection with it.” But the “impression will never be 
“effaced, that a deep gulf yawns between the Reformed Church 
“and primitive Christianity.” 

51. The newly discovered Catacombs supply silent but 
eloquent testimony to the truth of Catholic Tradition. Grave- 
stones, inscriptions, paintings, and other remains, attest in clear 
unfaltering tones, that the life led by the early Christians and 
martyrs was Catholic. Of the holy sacrifice of the Mass, of the 
Sacraments, of Purgatory as a place of purification, of Prayers 
for the dead, they supply many remarkable indications, Clearly 
the Catholic Church hankers not after novelties, seeing that 
many of her institutions can here be traced back to the second 
or third century. Moma Sotteranea comes as a valuabia sup) le- 
ment to the history of old Rome, which has been exposed to 
the ravages of time and man’s hand. 

Possibly, at times, conclusions are drawn too hastily in explain- 


706 MBhler, p. 374. Kuhn, Eindeit. p. 72. Staudenmaier, Dogmatik i. 44, Tanner, 
Das Keathol. Traditions=und das P>otest, Schrifiprincip. Luzern 1862, p. 13- 


Rohm, i. 207. 
toy Schuster, Johann Kepler, p. 164. Wagner, 7hgol. Lit: Cl. 188s, p. 283. of 
Rohn, lii. 45 


Meg 


os 


Le 


, ae. 
ieee 


\ ay. 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 407 


ing some of the pictorial symbolical illustrations. Hase in- 
stances Marche's attempt to refer the seven baskets in the 
multiplication of the loaves to the seven Sacraments, where- 
as in other pictures the baskets vary in number from one to 
eight, and in the first miracle twelve baskets are mentioned. 
But, after all, this is but a single instance that leaves the 
question itself untouched. And yet even here it is not 
without significance that the ancient artists consistently 
represented the two miracles as having seven baskets of 
fragments remaining, and not the larger number twelve. 
Augustine referred the feeding with seven loaves to the 
grace of the Church, ‘‘ which is strengthened by the well- 
‘ known sevenfold activity of the Spirit.’ 

52. Nevertheless, we fully admit that the historical or 
scientific demonstration of Catholic doctrines from Tradi- 
tion is at times beset with many difficulties. But that it 
must be borne in.mind that the same class of difficulties 
bestrew the path of the history of dogma and indeed of all 
history. Wherever human agency is at work, human im- 
perfections mar its efficacy. Hence the enquirer must look 
well to the object and method of his enquiry. Tradition is 
completely enshrined, implicitly at least, in the writings of 
the Fathers. But the Fathers neither set it forth in Sys- 
tematic order, nor was it their intention to give a complete 
enumeration and exposition. The need for any such thing 
was felt by them as little as by the Apostles. Hence it is 
quite intelligible that in many points they held divergent 
views. Wemust not confound their speculative views with 
their direct testimony to the faith of their times. Thus, for 
example, Origen and Jerome had scientific doubts in regard 
to several of the Canonical Scriptures, but, seeing that 
these were generally accepted, they made no objection to 
their being used inthe Church. And many Traditions have 
fared in the same way. A long time was needed before 
certain truths and institutions were scientifically and specu- 
latively understood, as Augustine remarks apropos of hereti- 


108 De Div. Quaest. Opp. xi. 351. Kraus, Real-Encyclop. i. 175. 


408 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 


cal baptism ; but the general faith and usage of the Church 
were independent of such considerations. 

The attitude taken up by the Fathers towards Infant Bap- 
tism is brought forward as a case in point. Tertullian, on 
the one hand, disapproved of Infant Baptism out of respect 
for the sacred action ; he cannot, therefore, have declared 
it to be an Apostolic Tradition ;'* but, on the other, it is 
clear from his treatise that Infant Baptism was, in his time, 
very widely practised. Moreover, he enjoins that the Sac- 
rament should not be conferred hurriedly either on adults 
or children. For even in the latter case, the god-parents 
are often unable to give security for the children being 
brought up as Christians. Nevertheless this is quite con- 
sistent with his viewing Infant Baptism as an Apostolic 
Tradition ; although he assigned to it no exclusive char- 


acter, as was usual in adult baptism. Even in the days of. 


Irenzus and Tertullian, Infant Baptism was justified by an 
appeal to Matth. xix. 14, and had obtained wide accept- 
ance. In the third century’” the practice of baptizing the 
children of Christian parents was generally received. And 
so no other course is open but to set it down as an Apos- 
tolic Tradition, an explanation which Tertullian does not 
dispute. Origen, too, in so many words, explains Infant 
Baptism as one of the customs handed down from the Apos- 
tles. Still it was not looked upon as a rigidly exclusive 
Tradition, else many children of Christian parents would 
not have grown up unbaptized. Only by reason of immi- 
nent danger were the faithful constantly exhorted not to 
_ defer baptism too long. The Council of Trent was the first 
to issue a dogmatic decree regarding the validity of Infant 
Baptism, and, at the same time, it enacted disciplinary 
regulations concerning it. Here, too, we see that develop- 
ment has taken its ordinary course. Our Lord gave utter- 
ance to the dogmatic thought underlying the whole ques- 


109 Hase, p. 72. Tertull., De Bapt.c. 18. De Anima, Cc. 39, 40. 


rio Harnack, p. 358. Hefele, i. «rs. Hergenrither, i. 264. Iren., ii. 22, 43 v. 15, 3. 
Orig. In. Ep. ad Rom. v. 9. In Levit. Homi, 8, 3. Conc. Trid. Sess. vii. De 
Bapt. can, 12. 13. 


ow resnane< 1p eee 


aa ave ‘Tat 


Sy ae 


: analy 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 409 


tion, viz. : that baptism is necessary for all men unto sal- 
vation. The universal practice of Infant Baptism, which 
cannot be proved to have been instituted by the Church,'”! 
points to its Apostolic origin. The position taken up by 
the Fathers at different times proves that Infant Baptism, 
though not absolutely binding, was considered most desir- 
able. Finally, the Council of Trent drew the necessary 
conclusion from the whole course of development that the 
question had undergone. 

53." Tradition and development go hand inhand. The 
former cannot be rightly understood without the latter. 
Then, again, Tradition, as the Church understands the term, 
is a complex institution. Like the Church herself, it con- 
sists of ahuman and a divine element. In one sense it is all 
human, in another it is all divine. Ever since the word of 
God has become human faith, says MGhler, it-has become 
subject to the condition and fortune of human ways. It is 
announced in human language, assimilated by the human 
mind, preserved and transmitted’ by human means. But 
then there is along with it the charisma veritatis, the assist- 
ance of the Holy Ghost promised to the Apostolic succession, 
by which the word of God is safeguarded against human 
error and corruption. The Spirit of truth that lives in the 
Church, is not merely that ‘‘ higher and refined historical 
sense,’ claimed by Protestant science, but it is the very 
Spirit of God.’* To say that the Catholic Church appeals 
to tradition and Scripture, either because she dreads the 
spectre of innovation, or because she does not feel perfect 
confidence in her infallibility, betrays woeful ignorance of 
the nature and character of Tradition, and of the whole 
genius of the Church. Had all her doctrines of faith been 
formulated and fully expressed from the beginning—if that 
were possible—there would be no intellectual life of faith 
in the Church, no development, no progress, nor growth 


rrr Aug. De Baft. iv. 23, 30; xxiv. 31. Genes ad. lit. x. 23, 30. Sermo, 174,9. De 
Lib. Arbit, iii. 20, 67. See Klee, Dogmatik, iii. 152, 


112. Haase, p. 70. 


410 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, 


in spiritual knowledge. ut if there was to be an ever-flowing 
stream of mental activity, of growth and progress in the 
knowledge cf God’s word, a real life of faith, then the divine 
Spivit Himself had to direct its course, and to strengthen the 
banks of the channel in which it flowed. 

54.* Protestant writers are wont to quote such doctrines as 
the seven Sacraments, indulgences, Purgatory, celibacy, auricu- 
lar confession, communion under one kind, Papal infallibility, 
Immaculate Conception, as doct/ines in which the principle of 
Tradition completely breaks down, With the same right they 
might quote the definitions of Niewa, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, 
as the heretics of that time ectually did. But they forget the 
doctrine of cevelopment. They seek formal and explicit testi- 
monies when there are only impiicit, This is the radical fault 
of the so-called histciical school as opposed to the dogmatic 
principle of Tradition. How effective, for instance, in the eyes 
of those who do not understand Catholic Tradition and develop- 
ment, is the phalanx, when properly marshalled, of mediaeval 
opposition to the Immaculate Conception! Yet to those who 
know what Tradition and development are, this appears for the 
time being but the natural and necessary result of both. Need 
we remark once more that only the consentient and final 
testimony of the Apostolic succession, that is, of Bishops in 
union with the Apostolic See, is infallib’e, and that, consequent- 
ly, until that testimony exists and is clearly brought horae to 
tac children of the Church, they are free to form their own 
Opinion, each one according to his light, and according to 
approved methods of theology? Unless Protestants can prove 
that these opponents of the doctrine were not ready to yield to 
the final decision or testimony of the Apostolic succession, or, 
again, that the doctrine is in no way implicitly contained in the 
position attributed to Mary in the early ages, the lance they 
point at Catholic Tradition will break harmless in their hands, 
Their objection will ever be beating the air, as it does when 
they object that the Church, at times, rests her claims upon 


vera) Se 


<4 


gee Ma f a ¢ hex « 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 4II 


spurious documents. Such, for instance, were the Pseudo- 
Isidorian Decretals, which, for a long time, were quoted 
as genuine documents of Tradition. But did the faith, to 
which these documents gave external expression, originate 
with them, or was it already in existence? Or, again, did 
the Church rest her claims upon them alone? These ques- 
tions, and these only, are to the point. 

55-* In the next place, the two-fold character of Catho- 
lic Tradition must be borne in mind, when the testimony of 
antiquity or a traditional proof for a doctrine is sought. 
The witnesses are not all alike, nor of the same authority. 
‘The bishops of the Church, as we have seen, besides being 
supernaturally qualified, have received an official and di- 
vine appointment to bear witness to the deposit of faith. 
Their testimony, not in their individual capacity, but as rep- 
resentatives of the Apostolic succession, is authoritative and 
infallible. The testimony of other ecclesiastical writers, not 
bishops, possesses only a human and historical authority. 
Again there is a considerable difference in the value of the 
mere human authority of all these witnesses, whether bish- 
ops or others, according as they persevered in the unity of 
the Church or not ; according as their works are express- 
ly or tacitly approved or censured. The ecclesiastical 
position of the witnesses, as S. Vincent and S. Augus- 
tine have already pointed out, is of the greatest impor- 
tance. So again, the solid and definite testimony to the 
belief of an age has to be distinguished from private views, 
speculations, hazards and opinions. Hence great discrimi- 
nation and care are required in the student who sifts the 
evidence of tradition for himself, and endeavours to form 
a proper estimate of the traditional proof offered by the 
Church. If the above canons and rules which spring from 
the very nature and character of Catholic Tradition, are re- 
membered, it will not be difficult to understand why the 
authority attaching in the Church to names like those of 
Origen, Tertullian, is very different ; why Augustine wrote 
retractations ; why, again, some views (opinions) more or 


412 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, 


less common among the Fathers were afterwards abandored, 
e.g. the doctrine of the Millenium, the Parousia, and others 
As the persons of the witnesses, so also the sxbject matter of 
their testimony differs. Hase thinks it ominous that the best 
names among the Fathers, those, too, who have done most for 
the development of Catholic truth and science, fell into bad 
repute and were more or less tainted with heresy. But the 
reason is plain. The Church knows how to distinguish between 
personal views or speculative opinions, and the testimony to 
the common faith, 

56. For the rest, the systematized body of Catholic doctrines, 
as it now stands, has nothing to fear from the closest scrutiny 
of antiquity. The edifice of Catholic belief is even now what it 
was in the days of the great Fathers and ecclesiastical writers. 
Both the Latin and Greek Fathers bear unanimous witness not 
only to the principle of Tradition, as the infallible rule of faith, 
but also to the contents of Tradition. This fact the Reformers 
themselves were obliged to recognize. How the case is altered with 
their doctrine of justification by faith alone! The Theologians 
of Rostock declare: As regards the articles on free will, grace 
and justification, orthodox antiquity is in complete agreement 
with Catholic Theologians.44 Kepler, speaking of the doctrine 
of ubiquity, says that in reading the Jesuit Gretser’s book against 
Wegelin, he felt in his heart the great weight that attaches to 
antiquity. He further confesses that the more he read of the 
ancients, the more he was convinced that the new Church is 
not in harmony with the old.6 

57. The conclusion of this lengthy chapter is now in sight. 
The historical and scientific proof for Tradition is a necessary 
postulate of the infallible magisterium of the Church. JVA72 
nist quod traditum est, is the fundamental statute law of the 
Church. It is an essentia! condition of the Church’s teaching, 


x13 Iiase, p, 73. Note 33. See Perrone, iii. S. 350. Zockler, ii. 314. 
114 Déllinger, Arete, p, 435° 
zxg Opp. viii. 794. 8643 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. A1l3 


but for all that it is not the rule of faith, nor a substitute for the 
living authoritative teaching of the Church. It cannot produce 
supernatural faith. For, this requires the internal grace of God 
and the external infallible authority of the Church. The final 
and decisive word as to what belongs to Tradition, is and 
must be with the Church. Such is the doctrine of the Vatican 
Council.46 Jt declares that Tradition is a necessary element 
in her divine magisterium. And the Roman Pontiffs, 
“according to the exigencies of times and circumstances, 
“sometimes assembling ecumenical Councils, or asking for the 
“mind of the Church scattered throughout the world, sometimes 6 yy 
“particular synods, sometimes using other helps which Divine 
“ Providence supplied, defined as to be held those things which 
‘‘with the help of God they have recognized as conformable 
“to the sacred Scriptures and Apostolic Traditions. For the 
“Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not that 
“by His Revelation they might make known new doctrine, but 
“that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faith- 
“fully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered 
Eetorough*the Apostles.” “. °y'o2 2° Ina previous chapter it 
had said: “Further all those things are to be believed with 
“divine and Catholic Faith which are contained in the Word 
“of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, esther 
“by a solenin tudgment, or by her ordinary and universal NALIS- 
“tertum, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.” 
It then goes on to say that faith as an inward act of the soul 
of man, requires a thoroughly reliable and reasonable basis, and 
that such a basis is the Cliurch, but yet only the Church 
Catholic. ‘And that we may be able to satisfy the obligation 
“ of embracing the true faith, and of constantly persevering in it, 
“God has instituted the Church through His only-begotten ~ 
“Son, and has bestowed on it manifest notes of that Institution 
“that it may be recognized by all men as the guardian and 


116 Const. Dogm. De Fide. cap. iiii, De Eccl. cap. iv. (Card. Manning's trans 


lation). 


414 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 


“teacher of the revealed Word ; for to the Catholic Church 
“alone belong all those many and admirable tokens which 
‘‘ have been divinely established for the evident credibility 
“of the Christian Faith. Nay, more, the Church by it- 
“self, with its marvellous extension, its eminent holiness, 
“and its inexhaustible fruitfulness in every good thing, 
‘with its Catholic unity and its visible stability, is a great 
‘“and perpetual motive of credibility, and an irrefutable 
‘“ witness of its own divine mission.”’ 

58.¢ In confirmation of the words of the Vatican Coun- 
cil as well as in illustration of the whole subject matter of 
Tradition, development, and authority, we cannot do bet- 
ter than quote the following remarkable passage from the 
writings of a keen Protestant thinker. Speaking of the 
Oxford movement in one of his theological essays, Mr. 
R. H. Hutton says: ‘‘ Suddenly there rose up, on the 
‘chosen ground of classical learning and among the ablest 
‘thinkers of the day, a rumour that Protestantism was 
‘reaping what it had not sown—that it could not have 
‘originated the faith which it had inherited. Restless, 
‘scrupulous, self-tasking, reasoning, subtle-minded men 
‘affirmed that, though the tendencies of their whole nature 
‘“ seemed to converge upon the Christian Revelation as the 
“very focus of their highest needs, yet that they could 
“never have accepted its facts as their highest certainty 
‘ without a Constantly renewed testimony from an author- 
“ity above that of individual conviction. They were 
“sure that it was easier to recognize a divine authority 
‘than to grasp or compass for themselves divine truth. 
‘' They thought they could perceive whom they ought to 
‘‘ obey, far more easily than what they ought to believe. 
‘And they maintained, too, that the power to obey must 
‘‘ be granted first, as the simpler and most practical neces- 
“sity of life, and that it would draw after it the fullness 
“of belief... . And then there grew upon them, more 
““and more powerfully, the fascination of that mighty pow- 
‘er, who through the march of centuries had advanced 


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 415 


‘with a measured tread of her own, unborrowed from her 
children—a step of which every footfall was a fiat, and 
~ the rhythm a faith. It was obviously easy to throw a 
temporary spell over minds in such a mood ; but what is 
“the charm which has power to retain them, after experi- 
ence of Rome’s coarse splendours, and of her vigilant 
and oppressive rule ? 

‘“ Rome alone has presented her theology to the world 
in a thoroughly institutional form. What Protestants 
believe, Rome embodies in a visible organism. While 
“ they derive the life of the Church from their faith, Rome 
~ derives her faith from the life of the Church. Roman- 
ism was a vast organisation almost before it was a dis- 
tinct faith. Rome did not so much incarnate her dog- 
mas in her ritual as distil her dogmas out of her ritual. 
“She had, indeed, knitted in with her spiritual agency 
‘Many an act both of conscious and unconscious faith ; 
she had built up her great missionary system on many 
‘assumptions both of truth and duty ; but, on the whole, 
she acted before she thought, and interpreted her faith 
under the inspirations of her achievements. Her theol- 
ogy flashed upon her, as it were, as she beheld the eccle- 
‘Siastical form and order which was growing up out of 
her unconscious energy. She solved the mystery of her 
own success by believing that her institutions were even 
“fuller of the divine power than her thought, that she 
could more easily draw God down into the bosom of the 
~ Church by her life, than she could lift up the Church to 
~ God by her meditation. Wherever the drift of Christian 
“practice seemed to point towards the development of the 
“ Church’s influence, there was a hint which she followed 
“up eagerly to its limits, as the directing finger of a divine 
“hand. And then contemplating her own fresh conquests 
‘from a heathen world, under the inspiring consciousness 
of being set to guide the mightiest and holiest of the 
“world’s forces, she did not hesitate to affirm that God 
“was in her institutions, that He was acting through her 


416 SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 


a“ 
~ 


agency, that He was really placing His divine influences 
at her disposal, and that in contemplating the orderly 
system of ecclesiastical life which was rising under her 
creating hand, she beheld the divine disposition of His 
living power. Thus, for example, the Christian practice 
of baptism was, in her hands, an agent of great social 
influence ; and as she witnessed its results in consecrat- 
ing new multitudes to Christ, and was conscious that her 
own faith grew in gazing at the act (instead of the virtue 
of the act having arisen from her faith), she at once 
affirmed that God had granted a mighty regenerating 
power to her hand, which did not proceed from, but 
afterwards passed into, her spirit ; that a grace was grant- 
ed to her institutions from which her faith was nourished. 

‘* Again the words of the Last Supper enjoined, as she 
supposed, the sacrifice of the mass. Eagerly Rome saw 
and used the mighty social influence of that divine insti- 
tution. But here again she seemed to gather faith 
from the power of the rite. She administered it in weak- 
ness and yet she was the almoner of power ; the faith was 
multiplied in the giving, so that while it seemed too lit- 
tle fora few, it fed multitudes, and she gathered up more 
than she divided ; it seemed that no virtue went out of 
her, yet richly it streamed in; in the act itself was the 
birth of faith ; the power of God was in the elements 
themselves, for the grace and peace, which had not passed 
through the spirit of the Church, returned upon her: 
and so she gazed till she could see the bread and wine no 
longer, though their external qualities remained ; the es- 
sence was transmuted before her eyes into the life of Him 
who first consecrated them ; the outward signs were but 
transparencies through which the living glory gleamed ; 
that seeming film of physical quality held fast the very 
presence of the Eternal, and God was perfectly blended 
with that sign of Himself which He had chosen,.’’™"" 


117. Essays Theological and Literary. Vol. I. p. 335. 


whad 


re Peles 


ee 


GHAPEER XID 


THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 


1. The marks and properties of the Church have from 
time to time brought into view its visible point of unity. 
For, in the last resort, the Apostolicity insisted on by 
Irenzus and Tertullian has its basis in the Roman Church. 
Without a visible centre, Unity and Catholicity have no 
point d’appui. Infallibility requires an united organization 
with ahead. Christ is, indeed, the invisible head of the 
Church ;* but since He constituted His Church a visible 
society, a visible body, He must have placed over it a visi- 
ble head. And as He expressly enjoins unity between 
Church and flock, He must have made provision for unity 
in the pastoral office.+ 


* The above expression is, sometimes, misunderstood. It may mean that Christ is the 
head of the invisible Church, that is, the whole gathering of those who are in a 
vate either of grace or glory. The souls of all the just stand in the same relation 
to Christ, as the members of the body to the head. Of this headship of Christ 
Catholic Theology treats under the title De gratia capitis Christi, See S, 
Thomas, III. q. 8. a. 3-8. But when the phrase has reference to the visible 
Church on earth, its meaning is very different. Christ is the invisible head of the 
visible Church, not only because He is its head in so far as it is a portion’of the 
invisible Church, but because He who is the visible head is Christ's vicar an 
representative ; just as each bishop and each priest is but a representative of 
Christ, ¢ke bishop of our souls, and fhe only eternal priest. In this sense, then, 
there is no head, no bishop, no priest in the Church but Christ. Thus the assertion 
of a visible [vicarious] head, far from being a denial, is, on the contrary, the 
Strongest assertion of Christ’s invisible headship, just as the existence of visible 
bishops and priests is the best proof of Christ’s continued episcopate and priesthood 
Onearth. 7y. 

t+ As Christ began the visible Church by collecting round Himself disciples, whom, as 
their visible head, bishop, and priest, He ruled and guided, led and sanctified, the 
antecedent probability, not to say necessity, for a vicarious head after His depar- 
ture from earth, becomes immense, quite independently of the overwhelming 
direct evidence from Scripture given by the author in the following paragraphs, 
Here we may notice that Anglican divines can, when they choose, be very keen 
on the argument from antecedent probability, Thus the writer of the essay on the 


418 THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 


2. We gather from Holy Scripture that our Lord as- 
signed to one of the twelve a pre-eminent position, and con- 
ferred on him exceptional power. This one was S, Peter. 
The first time that we meet him, he was one of the Baptist’s 
disciples. After Andrew, in company with John, had come 
to know Him whom the Baptist had pointed out to his dis- 
ciples, he said to his brother Simon: ‘‘ We have found the 
Messias, which is, ‘* being interpreted, Christ.’’ And forth- 
with Andrew introduced his brother to Jesus. ‘‘ And Jesus 
‘‘ looking upon him said : Thou art Simon the son of Jonas ; 
‘“ thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter’’ 
(John 1. 42. 43). Whether the future be taken as such, or 
as a Hebrew mode of making a categorical statement, in 
either case it answers perfectly to the picture of Jesus as 
sketched by John. Straightway,-at the first meeting, He 
bestows on Peter a name descriptive of his future office. 
In scanning his character Jesus discerned in him a fitting 
instrument for His Church. ‘ 

This meeting, preparatory to Peter’s call to the Apostle- 
ship formed the foundation of the relations that were 
henceforward to subsist between him and Jesus. ‘‘ And 
‘‘ Jesus walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, 
‘Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, 
‘casting a net into the sea (for they were fishers). And 
‘““he saith to them: Come ye after me, and I will make 
‘you to be fishers of men. And they immediately leaving 
“their nets followed Him.’’! Luke relates the incident in 
his own peculiar sententious way: Jesus seeing two ships 


Church in Lux Mundi uses it with great adroitness and force in proving that -Christ 
must have instituted (1) a Church or visible society, (2) with visible government 
and priesthood, (3) with visible unity through the historic succession of the Episco- 
pate. But, strange to stay, his hand suddenly loses its cunning, and/he stops short 
in face of the question ofa visible centre of that unity. He dismisses the question 
with the offhand remark: ‘* The Roman Church has added to it what*seemed a 
further safeguard of unity, the test of communion with itself ; (?) but ‘this was a_ 
later claim, a claim which was persistently resented, and which was urged’ with 
disastrous result.’’ (P. 380-381). And, stranger still, of the entire evidence of 
Scripture as to the Primacy of S. Peter there is not a word in the whole ‘essay 3 as 
if our Lord’s dealings with S. Peter had no bearing whatever upon the ‘organization 
of the Church! 7y. 
x. Matth. iv. 18.19. Mark i, 16. 27.. Luke v. 1 seq. 


THE PRIMACY OF §, PETER. 419 


standing by the Lake of Genesareth went into one that was 
Simon’s, and desired him to draw back a little from the 
land. And He taught the multitude from the ship. ‘‘ When 
‘He had ceased to speak, He said to Simon : Launch out 
“into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught. 
“And Simon answering said to Him: Master, we have 
‘laboured all the night and have taken nothing ; but at 
" thy word I will let down the net. And when they had 
“ done this, they enclosed a very great multitude of fishes, 


and. their, net. broke... Which when Simon Peter 
‘saw, he fell down at Jesus’ knees saying : Depart from 
“me, for lam a sinful man, O Lord . . . And Jesus saith 


“to Simon: Fear not ; from henceforth thou Shalt catch 
“men. And having brought their ships to land, leaving 
“all things, they followed Him” (Luke v. 1 seq.), 

3. This is not the place to discuss the relation in which 
S. Luke’s narrative stands to the others. The Fathers halt 
between identification and separation. From Augustine to 
Toletus the narratives were set down as distinct. Modern 
commentators, since the days of Luke of Bruges, are al- 
most unanimous in identifying the two. Some cut it into 
two, or distinguish two acts in the drama. The differences 
are. sO Numerous that Luke’s account can hardly be re- 
garded as an enlargement of that given by Matthew and 
Mark. The march of events, and the entire situation are 
different. It is not at all improbable that the disciples, 
after their vocation, from time to time, plied their trade. 
And as Jesus was fond of walking by the lake, such scenes 
were very natural. As Luke’s narrative implies that the 
disciples were acquainted with our Lord, it must be set 
down as the more recent. 

Why, it may be asked, has Luke drawn the narrative 
with such minuteness of detail ? The answer must be 
Sought in Peter’s subsequent conduct ; in the whole char- 
acter of S. Luke’s Gospel; and in the veneration for the 
person of Peter, who is the chief figure in the first part of 
the Acts. In S. Paul’s Epistles, too, he stands out as the 


420 THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 


recognized head of those Apostles for whom Christ had 
shewn a preference. S. Luke wished to mark the signifi- 
cant bearing this incident had on the position of Peter in 
the Apostolic College. For this reason the narrative was 
not infrequently explained symbolically. For it was from 
Peter’s ship that the net was launched for a rich capture. 
It would have been almost broken, had not his compan- 
ions come to his aid. And thus Peter holds the foremost 
place in the ship, which is the Church. He it is who must 
first let down the net. To him, before all others, apply 
the words: ** Thou shalt catch men.’’ The others are his 
helpmates, and in conjunction with him, people and _ fill 
the Church with those who confess Christ. Peter's Church 
is the Church of Christ. The ship, in which Peter is, is 
the Noe’s Ark in which the faithful are saved.? 

4. When we look more closely into the position that 
Peter forthwith assumed in the Apostolic College, we see 
that he was one of the few to whom preference was shewn, 
and that among these he was the first. After the very first 
appearance in the Synagogue at Capharnaum, Jesus went 
to Peter’s house, and healed his mother-in-law who was 
sick of a fever. (Matth. vi. 14). And after He had gone 
away, “‘ Simon and they that were with him followed after 
‘*Him.’’ (Matth. 1. 36). Not merely does Peter always 
head the list of the Apostles,* but he is also expressly 
described as the first (Matth. x. 2). The Synoptists, too, 
give special prominence to the name Peter. Mark inter- 
rupts the course of his narrative to observe: ‘‘ To Simon 
“He gave the name ‘Peter.”’- (11. 16). Peter, Jameéseaums 
John were the only three privileged to witness the raising 
of the daughter of Jairus (Mark v. 37, 43). When Jesus 
walking upon the sea came to the Disciples, it was Peter 


who jumped down into the water from the boat to go and | 


meet Him. (Matth. xiv. 28, seq.) It was Peter, again, 
who asked our Lord to expound the parable concerning 
outward and inward purity. (xv. 15.) 


2 Maxim. Tur., Sexazo 114. Arnob., 7% Psalm, 106. 
3 -eMatth. x, 2.0 Mark niv.t7, 18. --Lukendo14, 15... ActsA. 33. 


wie eo. 


Se ag SR PE lt OS a oe 


Pe Ay RR Rit i 


IE NEES Ap ALS i's 


THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. AQT: 


5. After Christ’s memorable discourse in the Synagogue 
at Capharnaum, many of the Disciples went away, and 
walked no more with Him, because they found His doc- 
trines hard to believe. ‘‘ Then Jesus said to the twelve: 
“Will you also go away. And Simon Peter answered 
‘Him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the 
‘“ words of eternal life.’’ (John vi. 67, seq.) This incident 
is closely bound up with the confession that S. Peter made, 
when our Lord asked the Disciples whom they took Him to 
be: “ Thou art Christ the Son of the living God.”’ (Matth. 
XVI. 16.) To appraise at its full worth this confession, so 
public and so unambiguous, we must accurately weigh the 
circumstances, The Apostles had, indeed, seen the mira- 
cles that Jesus had wrought, and had listened to His exalt- 
ed teaching. But what a forest of prejudice had to be cut 
down before they could persuade themselves that He who 
stood before them in the simple guise of a man was the 
Messias, whose coming the prophets had painted in such 
dazzling colours! before they would reconcile themselves 
to honour the true Son of God with the same faith as they 
honoured the one God, Jahve. Nor was the hostile atti- 
tude assumed by the Jewish scribes and doctors calculated 
to develop such faith. 

Once, indeed, the Apostles, carried away with astonish- 
ment at Christ’s wondrous miracles, had fallen at His feet 
exclaiming : ‘‘ Indeed, thou art the Son of God.’’ (Matth. 
XIv. 23). But now, it was a question of uttering, with 
calm, deliberate reflexion, the confession that was to be de- 
cisive for the future. And for Peter, the mouthpiece of 
the Apostles, as Chrysostom calls him, the task was re- 
_served. Peter sealed the faith of the Apostles with the 
clear, precise formula in which he gave in his full adhesion 
to Jesus as the Messias and Son of God. And Jesus Him- 
self recognized the importance and far-reaching signifi- 
cance of the step taken by the first of the Apostles. For he 
appealed to divine revelation as the only possible source of 
faith so far removed from all human and natural motives. 
“‘ Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona,’’ said our Lord, ‘‘ be- 


422 THE PRIMACY "OF -S: “PETER. 


‘““ cause flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my 
‘“ Father who isin heaven.’’ Whence it follows that Peter, 
though speaking in the name of all, as the Fathers gener- 
ally assumed,* was also making his own profession of 
faith.* 

Shortly afterwards, when our Lord foretold His coming 
passion to the disciples for the first time, ‘‘ Peter taking 
‘“ Him began to rebuke Him saying: Lord, be it far from 
‘Thee, this shall not be unto Thee.’’ (Matth. xvi. 22). 
And turning to Peter, our Lord said: ‘‘Go behind me, 
‘“ Satan, thou art ascandal unto me: because thou savour: 
“est not the things that are of God, but the things that are 
‘“of men.’’ Even the sharp rebuke itself serves to bring 
out in bold relief Peter’s prominent position. . 

6. At the Transfiguration, Peter is again to the fore 
(Matth. xvi. 1). In his rash impetuosity he proposes to 
build three tabernacles on the Mount. And when Jesus 
had returned with His Ccisciples to Capernaum, ‘‘ they that 
‘‘ received the didrachmas came to Peter and said : Doth 
“not your master pay the didrachmas?’ (Matth. xvm. 
24). And Peter quickly answered: Yes. After telling 
Peter that He and His disciples were, properly speaking, 
free, Christ said: ‘‘ But that we may not scandalize them, 
““go to the sea, and cast in a hook; and that fish which 
‘“ shall first come up take ; and when thou hast opened its 
“mouth, thou shalt find a starter; take that, and give it 
‘“to them for me and thee.’’ And when Jesus had dis- 
coursed on fraternal correction, Peter came unto Him and 
asked, how often he should forgive his offending brother 
(xvi. 21). After our Lord’s interview with the rich young 
man, it was Peter again who put the question: ‘‘ Behold 
‘we have left all things and have followed thee: what 
‘ therefore shall we have ?”’ (xix. 27). 

In the history of the Passion, too, Peter plays achief role. 


4 See Bonavent., Exfos, in Luc. ix. 20. Langen, Unfehlbarkeit, ii. 99. 

* Amuch more correct way of putting it, would be to say that the other Apostles 
appropriated to themselves and made their own the confession which Peter made of 
the divinity of Christ, Tr. ; 


i a ee Ee ea ee ee ee ee 


THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 423 


On seeing the whithered fig tree, he reminds our Lord how His 
curse had taken effect (Mark x1. 21). On the Mount of Olives, 
Peter, along with James and John and Andrew, questions our 
Lord as to the fate awaiting the temple (xu. 3). At the wash- 
ing of the feet Peter was unwilling to allow our Lord to 
perform such an act of humility to him (Jobn xi. 6). On 
hearing, however, that unless this were done he could have so 
part with Jesus, he forthwith exclaimed: “Lord, not only my 
“feet, but also my hands and my head.” At the Supper itself 
it was indeed the beloved disciple that leaned on the bosom of 
Jesus, but the eager and impulsive Peter, who was close to him, 
beckoned to him to ask Jesus of whom He was speaking as the 
traitor (John x11. 24). In the farewell discourse, again, Peter 
is the first to ask our Lord whither He was going (John x11. 36). 
Thz prediction that they would all be scandalized, provokes 
from Peter the rejoinder: ‘‘ Allthough all shall be scandalized 
“in Thee, I will never be scandalized (Matih. xxvt. 33). Nor 
could the prediction of his own fall repress his intense affection, 
and, as he thought, unswerving attachment. ‘* Yea, though I 
“should die with Thee, I will not deny Thee.” Jesus, however, 
in mitigation of that fall adds: “Simon, Simon, behold satan 
“hath desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat. But 
‘7 have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not: and thou being 
“once converted confirm thy brethren ” (Luke xxil. 31. 32). 
Peter and the two sons of Zebedee are privileged to accompany 
the Saviour to the garden of Gethsemani, and to witness the 
deepest depths of His sorrow. It was to Peter that Jesus 
addressed the gentle rebuke: Simon sleepest thou? A little 
later Peter draws his sword in defence of his Master (John 
AVIII. 10) He too, accompanied by one other disciple, 
(John xvitt. 15) follows Him from afar, while the others. fled 
(Luke xx. 54. He enters the court of the High-priest, where 
his faith and love encounter a terrible trial. His courage fails,§ 
and he denies his Master. Jesus looks upon him, and he forth 


g Aug., De Mend. c. 6. Prudentius, Cazh. i. 57. 


424 THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 


with begins his course of life-long penance (Luke xxu. 61. 
62). The lesson is learnt. The rock of the Church was to 
combine outward confession with inward faith; but both 
are the gratuitous gift of God. All the Evangelists men- 
tion Peter’s fall and humiliation. Why ? 

7. The first message of the Risen Saviour sent by the 
angel is: ‘‘ But go, tell His disciples and Peter that He 
‘“goeth before you into Galilee.” (Mark xvi. 7). The 
women hasten to Simon Peter and the other disciples to | 
inform them that the tomb is empty. Peter and the other 
disciple go out to see. John runs and arrives sooner than . 
Peter, but the latter enters the sepulchre first (John xx. 2 
seq.) The Risen Saviour Himself appears first to Peter 
(Luke xxiv. 34; I Cor. xv. 5). ‘‘ After this Jesus shewed 
‘‘ Himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias. 
‘And He shewed Himself after this manner: There were 
“together Simon Peter and Thomas . . . Simon Peter 
“esaith sto thet ni soma ishing ae se eee nae disciple, 
“therefore, whom Jesus loved, said to Peter: It is the 
‘Lord. Simon Peter when he heard it was the Lord, girt 
‘his coat about him (for he was naked) and cast himself 
‘into the sea . . . Simon Peter went up and drew up 
‘the net to land, full of great fishes.’’ Then follows that 
scene of inexpressible tenderness, beauty, and grandeur, 
the threefold act of love and humility together with the 
thrice repeated charge to feed His sheep and His lambs. 
Finally Christ foretells by what death Peter was to die. 
(John xxi. 1-19). Commenting upon these facts S. Chrys- 
ostom® remarks: ‘‘ Why was He not seen of all at the same 
‘time? That He might first sow the seeds of faith. For 
“he that saw Him first, and was exactly and fully assured, 
‘told it unto the residue; then their report coming first, 
‘placed the nearest in expectation of this great wonder 
‘““and made way before the faith of sight. Therefore 
‘neither was He seen by all together, nor in the beginning 
‘by more in number, but by one alone first, and him the 
“leader of the whole company, and the most faithful ; 
6 Chrysost., Zz J Cor. Homil, xxxviii. 4. (Oxford Transl.) 


THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 425 


since indeed there was great need of a most faithful soul 
to be first to receive this sight. For those who, after 
others had seen and heard, got a sight by their means, 
had in their testimony what contributed in no small de- 
gree to their own faith, and tended to prepare their own 
‘mind beforehand ; but he who was first counted worthy 
to see Him, had need, as I before said, of great faith, not 
to be confounded by a sight so contrary to expectation. 
Therefore He shows Himself to Peter first. For he that 
first confessed Him to be Christ, was justly also counted 
worthy first to behold His resurrection. And not on this 
account alone doth He appear to Him first, but also be- 
cause he had denied Him, more abundantly to comfort 
him, and to signify that he is not abandoned, before the 
rest He vouchsafed him even this sight, and to him first 
entrusted His sheep. Therefore also He appeared to the 
women first. Because this sex was made inferior, there- 
fore both in His birth and in His resurrection this first 
tastes of this grace. But after Peter, He is seen also of 
each dispersedly, and at one time of fewer, at another of 
more, thereby making them witnesses and teachers of 
each other, and rendering His Apostles trustworthy in all 
‘that they said.”’ 

To no other Apostle was his death and martyrdom fore- 
told. Both the prediction and the manner of death (similar 
to our Lord’s) constitute a particular Petrine privilege. 
And it is not the least remarkable circumstance, that the 
Gospel narrative closes with this announcement. 

8. We have drawn a rapid sketch, from the four Evan- 
gelists, of the singular preference our Lord -shewed for 
Peter. Each Gospel seems to view him in a different light. 
The first lays stress on his relation to Christ and the 
Church ; the second has always been considered his own 
Gospel ;: the third brings out in relief his human weakness 
made strong by grace; the last shows him forth as the 
leader of his companions, as the humble, yet fiery Apostle. 
But all agree in the portrait they delineate of his charac- 


¢é 


426 THE PRIMACY OF S, PETER 


ter, his virtues, and his faults. No one of the Apostles 
seemed to be better qualified to carry out the great work 


that Christ intended to commit tothem. The reader of 
the Gospels cannot but feel drawn to Peter, whose soul is. 
always on fire, whose heart is aglow with love,—a love. 


quick and impulsive, like all human love, and yet cour- 
ageous and daring, and large enough to conquer the whole 


world. Nor can the reader help compassionating him in. 


his fall. The sight of the mighty oak bent by the storm 
fills him with sadness. And how he rejoices at seeing Peter 
rise again from his fall and receive the gracious pardon of 
his Lord and Master! And the joy in his heart mounts 


and swells when, once more, he beholds the grand figure 


again in his place at the head of the Apostolic College. 
Who does not feel a lively interest in the man whom 


Christ, at their very first meeting, designated a rock ?—the 


rock on which the new world-wide city of God was to be 
built ; the rock hewn by the hand of God, the rock that 
seemed for the moment to be beaten down and engulphed 
beneath the waves, but which now stands above the waves, 
firm and impregnable. 

The incidents detailed in the foregoing pages, taken in 
their cumulative force, establish beyond cavil or question, 
that S. Peter held a prominent position among the Twelve, 
and that he was from the first the object of Christ’s special 
care and affection. Let this prominent position be called, 
for argument’s sake, a primacy of honour, anyhow it is a 
primacy. Butthestudent of Scripture will hardly rest sat- 
isfied with the naked fact. He will naturally seek the 
cause and reason why. He will ask himself: For what 
purpose did Christ confer on Peter all this honour and pre- 
ferment? He feels sure that there must be a natural way 
of accounting forit ; a way that shall make all these details 
and all the texts of Scripture fit into a harmonious whole. 
To these special Petrine texts we will now direct our at- 
tention. ; 

9. The first special passage that has to be considered, is 


ots Gennaio” 


tpl) de elt Viti “le A St 


ae ie 


ee ee a ee Je gow én 


THE PRIMACY OF S. PLIER., 427 


from Matthew xvi. 18-19: ‘‘ And I say to thee: That thou art 
“ Peter, and upon this rock Lwill build my Church, and the gates 
“of hell shall not prevail against tt. And I will give to thee the 
“* Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt 
“bind upon earth, tt shall be bound also in heaven; and whatso- 
“ever thou shalt loose on earth, tt shall be loosed also in heaven.” 
These words were spoken to Peter immediately after he had 
received a special divine revelation. to confess the divinity of 
Christ. The three Synoptists allude to the confe sion, but S. 
Matthew’s account is more minute than that of the others, and 
he alone has recorded the great promise with which Christ 
rewarded Peter’s Confession. 

No passage is less open to criticism, It fits well into the 
plan and compositicn of the first Gospel, the scope of which is 
to prove to Jewish Christians from the prophecies that Christ is 
the Messias, the Son of God, and that the new kingdom is the 
Messianic kingdom. S. Matthew, therefore, had a special 
reason for entering in detail 1.0 the constitution, organism, 
and laws of the new kingdom, in order to contrast it with the 
old Theocracy. Over against the Decalogue he places the 
sermon on the Mount; the Apostles are the antithesis to the 
Prophets ; the Church has taken the place of the Synagogue. 
To assert that the picture of the Church, as drawn by S. 
Matthew, with S. Peter at the head, is a product of a later age,’ is 
to worst:.) shadows and adore false shapes. Matthew’s Gospel 
is the answer and the realization of ancient prophecy and 
Jewish expectations. Its scope and immediate purpose supply 
the natural explanation of its contents. Antiquity with one 
concerted voice assigns it the first place. ‘The objection that it 
is only the later accounts which describe Peter as the type and 
representative of the community, or at least of the Apostles,® 
7 Weisse, Evangel. Geschichte, ii. 93. Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 246. Jesus 

Nazarenus, p.144. Holizmannn, Bibel-Le-xicon, iv. 482. Wittichen, Leden Jesu, 


p- 193. Hase, Geschichte Jesu. p. 246. Against these, see Thoma, Die Petrus 
benennung, (Zeitschrift fiir Wiss. Theol. 1875, p. 215.) Hilgenfeld, 7d. 1877, p. 2676 


8 Weizsicker, Untersuchungen, p.75 Note 1. Afostol. Zeitalter, p, 39%. 


- 428 THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 


would, if it were true, be equally fatal to the modern critical 
view of the composition of the Gospels. For he is generally so 
represented in our Lord’s discourses which the critics consider 3 
the oldest portions of S. Matthew’s Gospel. On their own 
admission, therefore, S. Matthew’s purpose was not to give 
undue prominence to Peter and his party, and set them on an 
artificial pedestal, but to tell the plain and simple truth that the 
new kingdom fulfilled the promises of the old law, and to show 
in what way it fulfilled them. 

Why, then, it will be asked, have the other Evangelists 
omitted this important promise to §. Peter? From motives of 
simple prudence. It would have been ill advised and dangerous 
in the extreme to flourish the new religion before the heathen 
world as a compact, organized, and firmly established society. 
These reasons were less urgent in writings, but they were 
paramount in the oral instructions of the faithful. Hence, 
Mark, Peter’s companion, is satisfied with merely hinting and 
alluding to his distinguished position. But an impartial exami- 
nation of the account in the three Synoptisis will show at once 
that S. Matthew’s is the fullest. He gives the reason why 
Simon’s name was changed to Peter; his purpose was to draw 
out the magnificent parallels between the old and new Theoc- 
racy. 


ee ee ee 


to. As regards the interpretation of the passage, it is much 
easier now than in former days. The grammatical and historical é 
interpretation is decisive and indisputable. It would be sheer : 
waste of time and labour to refute seriously the pet evasions of | 
Protestants of the old and new school.9 “The promise,” they 
say, ‘“is not made to Peter personally, but to his faith subjective 
“and objective.” But in the text the person is clearly addressed 
‘Thou art Peter,” and this name is meant to find its explantion 
in the following “and on this rock (Petra) I will build My 
“Church.” Petrus and Petra are manifestly set one against the 
other, very clearly in Greek and Latin, on account of the different 


9 Holtzmann, Zeitschrift, fur wiss Theol. 1878, p- 15> 


~ 


THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 429 


termination of masculine and feminine ; but less so in Aramaic, 


where the word e/a is used in both cases. John retains the 
latter expression, and S. Paul, too, uses it by preference.!® The 
Greeks usage of wérpos in the sense of rock is not unknown. 
The copulative particle “and” [«at] as well as the demonstra- 
tive pronoun “upon 7Zérs rock,” establish the immediate 
connexion with the preceding subject ‘“‘ Peter.” ‘The natural 
and obvious sense being that Christ now assigns the reason 
why He had said at the very first meeting “thou shalt be called 
cr Kepha (Peter).” “Thou art Peter, 1.e., a man firm like a 
rock ; and upon this rock, i.e., firm foundation I will build 
“My Kanal or Church.” No doubt this simple categorical 
statement will suggest many subordinate questions, as it may be 
regarded from several distinct points of view. Christ, as we all 
know, is the head and founder of the Church, and the foundation 
on which it is built. Christ’s divinity, too, as is equally well 
known, is objectively the fundamental article of the edifice of 
Christian faith, and the belief in this article is the corner-stone 
in the subjective confession of faith. All these considerations 
help to explain Zew Peter is the rock of the Church, and zy 
he was made the rock, but they are far from explaining away 
the fact that he is the rock. Why is he the rock? Because of 
the firm and unfaltering nature of his inward and outward 
confession of faith, the ultimate cause of which is to be sought, 
not in human nature, but in God’s revelation. Then, again, 
since Peter is made a rock by Him who is ¢He rock, he can only 
be a vicarious rock. When, therefore, the Fathers declare that 
Christ, or Christ’s divinity, or faith in His divinity is the rock, 
their interpretations are quite correct; namely they are insisting 
on one or other of the points which are severally included in 
the full meaning of the text. In the language of Aristotle and 
S. Thomas, Peter is the causa materialis, his faith the causa 
formats, Christ the causa principalis and efficiens of the rock. 
To urge one more than another is not to exclude the remainder. 


ro Johni. 42. I. Cor. i. 12; iii. 22 5 ix.553 xve§. Gal.ii.g See alsoi, 183 ii. 11, 24. 


430 THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 


It is to no purpose, therefore, to pile up quotations of these 
different (partial) interpretations of the Fathers and School- 
men,'*” as the author of the Sma/kaldic articles does.® 

11. Chrysostom says: ‘* Upon this rock, not upon Peter ; 
for not upon a man, but upon the faith of Peter has 
He built His Church. And what faith was that? [It 
was] ‘‘ Thou art Christ the Son of the living God.’ 
flilary says: ‘‘ The Father revealed it to Peter so that 
“he could say: Thou art Christ the Son of the living 
“God. Upon the rock of this confession, therefore, rests 
“the edifice of the Church.’' Indeed the Fathers and 
older interpreters” frequently explain the rock of the faith 
of Peter, sometimes even of the faith of the believers in 


11 Eusebius, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, Hilary, Jerome, Augustine, Primasius, 
Cassiodorus, Gregory the Great, Ven. Bede, Peter Lombard, Glossa ordinaria. See 
Langen, Un/ehlbarkeit, p. 40; ii. g3 iii. 11. Kirchenvdter, p. 121. 

12 On the Protestant interpretation, see Meyer Comment. zu Matth. Gottingen, 1876, 
p- 351. Ellicott, a New Testament Commentary, on Matth. xvi. 16. This Angli- 
can Bishop and commentator is worth quoting at least zz ferrorem. He says: 
It is not easy, in dealing with a text which for many centuries (?) has been the 
subject-matter of endless controversies, to clear our minds of those “ after-thoughts 
of theology”? which have gathered round it, and, in part at least, overlaid its 
meaning. It is clear, however, that we can only reach the true meaning by putting 
those controversies aside, at all events till we have endeavoured to realise what 
thoughts the words at the time actually conveyed to those who heard them, and 
that when we have grasped that meaning, it will be our best preparation for deter- 
mining what bearing they have upon the later controversies of ancient and modern 
times. And (x) it would seem clear that the connection between Peter and the 
rock . . . was meant to be brought into special prominence ... (2) Whether he 
is to be identified with the rock of the next clause is, however, a question on which 
men may legitimately differ. [After saying that there is a probability for the affirm- 
ative and a possibility of the negative opinion, he continues] (3) on the assumption 
of a distinction there follows the question, What is the rock? Peter’s faith 
(subjective)? or the truth (objective) which he confessed? or Christ Himself ? 
Taking all the facts of the case, the balance seems to incline in favor of the last 
view. [Now follow the passages where Christ or God is called or compared to a 
rock, he then continués] As with the words which in their form present a parallel (?) 
to these, ** Destroy this temple’? (John ii. 19), so here we may believe the meaning 
to have been indicated by a significant look or gesture. The Rock on which the 
Church was to be built was Himself. . . Had Peter himself been meant, we may 
add, the Scripture form, ‘ Thou art Peter and on thee I will build My Church,” 
would have been clearer and more natural. As it is, the collocation suggests an 
implied contrast. ‘Thou art the Rock-Apostle; and yet not ¢ke Rock on which 
the Church is to be built. It is enough for thee to have found the Rock, and to 
have built on the one Foundation.” And this passes for serious and sober 

exegesis! Tr, 

13 Artic. Smale. p. 345. 

14 Jn Matth. Homil. 55. 83 (al. 54,2; 82, 3). Hilar., De Trinit. vi. (36, 37). 

1§ Langen, Unfehdd. p. 38. ii. 193 iii. 24. 


ee a a 


ea a 


—_ 


THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 431 


general”; but what follows from that? Nothing more 
than that the reason why Peter is the rock lies in his divine 
knowledge and his bold confession of revealed faith, espe- 
cially of its fundamental article. We have but to read the 
whole context in order to see that, far from denying the 
Petrine privilege, they rather derive it from the words and 
their interpretation. Thus Hilary remarks, that while all 
the Apostles were silent, Peter, outstripping the measure 
of human weakness, recognized the Son by the revelation 
of the Father, and by confessing His divinity he acquired 
pre-eminent glory ? 

Origen has these words: “‘ Peter upon whom the Church 
‘* of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell will not 
Meprevall... 

Cyprian, likewise, calls the Church the mother, fountain, 
and root, which was first and by the word of the Lord alone 
built upon Peter! ‘*‘ Upon him alone does He build His 
‘Church (to him alone does He commit His sheep to 
‘“‘feed).’’ ‘‘ Forto Peter, upon whom He built His Church, 
‘* whence also He instituted and showed forth the origin of 
‘‘unity, He gave the guarantee that whatever He should 
‘* loose on earth, should also be loosed in heaven.’’* TZer- 
tullian before him, had asked the question : ** Was anything 
‘*hidden from Peter, who is designated as the rock upon 
‘‘ which the Church is to be built ?”’ It is needless to pro- 
duce further testimonies,’ as most impartial interpreters, 
even Protestants, are now agreed that the reference of the 
rock to Peter is undeniable. The younger Jansenius had 
already supplied the correct interpretation to our passage : 
‘‘When some of the Fathers say that the faith or confes- 


16 Orig., 7. Matth. xii. 10, 11, 14. Cyrill. Hier., Catech. xi. 3, Procop., Maxim. 
Conf., Ambros., Cassiodor. 

17 In Joann. v.3. Cf. In Matth. xiii. 31. Euseb., H. £., vi. 25, 8. 

18 De Exhort. Martyr.c. 11. De Unit.c. 4. Epist. 73,73 40,5. De Hab. Virg.c. 
10. Tertull., De Praescr. c. 22. 

19 Hilar., 7x Matth. xvi. n.7. Ps. 131, 4. Hieron., Zz. Matth., ili. 16. Ep. 41, 2. 
Adv. Pelag.i.14. Aug., Retract.i, 21. Victor., 72 Gal. i. 18. Ambros., De Fide, 
iv. 56. Ps. 40,30. Jn Luc. iv.7. Leo M., Sermos51,1. Gregor M., Ef. Vii. 40. 
Epiphan, Haer, 59, 7.8. Axcor.c.g. Cyrill., Alex., vi. 219. Gregor. Naz., Orat. 
32, 18. See Langen, p. 5. 


4 


432 THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 


“sion of Peter was the rock, it is true in the causal, not | 


‘in the formal sense, since his faith was the meritorious 
“cause for which the Church was formally built upon S. 
‘‘ Peter ; just as Jerome says in his 61st Epistle, that not 


"‘ the body, but the faith of Peter walked upon the waters.”’ } 


Faith in the abstract, has no existence ; it only exists in a 
living being. The Church is an edifice of living stones, 
And for this reason, the rock upon which it is built must 
be a living rock, not an abstract quantity, but a real, con- 
crete being, a person with living faith.” 

This may furnish an explanation of the choice of the two 
different terminations in the Greek and Latin, Petrus and 
petra, In the second clause—super hanc petram—chief stress 
is laid upon the firmness in the man Peter. The metaphor 
of the rock, as cause and symbol of firmness, is of biblical 
usage.“ The same idea underlies the mountain, mount 
Zion, holy city on the mountain of the Lord. The custom 
of building temples upon a rock, and of having a sacred 
stone for an altar, is also known to the heathen.” 

On the word ‘‘ church” we have already commented in 
a preceding chapter. The expression was naturally sug- 
_ gested by the very circumstances of the situation. The at- 
titude taken up by the Jews, especially the leaders of the 
Synagogue, had obliged our Lord to establish not only a 
new Israel, but a distinct and separate organization with a 
new faith, new worship,new government. It was self-evi- 
dent to a Jew that no one but Jahve, or one sent by Him, 
could supplant the old theocracy that God had established 
through Moses. Hence when the moment had arrived for 
our Lord to tell the disciples of the impending rupture 
with the old Kahal (Mcsaic church), He first asked them 
a question as to His personal character and office, and hav- 
ing obtained the full and clear confession of His divinity, 
He forthwith announced the fact of the foundation of 


20 Simar, Dogmatick, p. 596. Dollinger, Christenthum, p. 31. 

2x Ps. 26, (27) 5; 39, 3. Matth. vii. 24. Deut. xxxii. 4; xviii, 30. Zach. ix. 16. See 
Selbst, Die Kirche. p. 181. 

22 Sepp, Leben Jesu, 2 ed. v. 9. 


. 4, 5 » a , 7 * — 
eh MP Page ay ee ee ee ae ee ee, 


\ ae 


THE PRIMACY OF S, PETER. 433 


His Kahal or Church, wherein Peter was to hold the place 
of Moses.* This was necessary, moreover, in the interests 
of the disciples and of the future work of Christ, which 
was to be dependent on them. For His life was fast 
drawing to a close; already His path had begun to be 
darkened by the shadow of His passion and death. The 
small flock of little faith began to be troubled. ‘* From 
‘that time Jesus began to show to His disciples, that He 
‘‘must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the 
‘‘ancients and scribes and chief priests, and be put to 
‘** death, and the third day rise again.’’ Christ’s work was 
now secured ; the new kingdom of God would continue, as 
it had begun. For Christ would leave Peter in His place, 
strong as a rock, as the visible centre of His Church or 
community, which at the time consisted mainly of the Apos- 
tles, and therefore Peter was to be to his brethren what 
Christ had been to them all. Thus both the grammatical 
and the historical interpretation of the text are too clear and 
natural to be disputed by any save those who are blinded 
with prejudice. To quote the words of a largely circulated 
Protestant commentary : ‘‘ There is no doubt that the Pri- 
‘“macy among the Apostles is here conferred upon Peter, in 
‘‘as much as Christ distinguishes him personally as the one 
‘“ whose Apostolic work, in consequence of his eminent and 
‘“‘ peculiar firmness of faith, will impart, humanly speaking, 
‘‘ the indispensable condition of strength and support to the 
“community that Christ founded and intended to spread 
‘“over the world.” Again, another Protestant speaks to 
this effect :* ‘‘In this he (Weiss) is right, that he rejects 
‘‘all ancient and modern Protestant interpretations, and 
‘‘ refers the promise to the person of Peter, by whom the 


23 Meyer, zzh.2. Weiss, in % 2. 


- 24 Holtzmann, Zeztschrz/t, etc. 1878, p. 393. 


* The parallelism between Moses and Peter had clearly struck the early Christians, as 
we may see from the painting on a large glass plate discovered by Basilewsky in 
Dalmatia Ullyricum): ‘* Petrus virga percussit, fontes coeperunt currere,” 
*‘ Peter struck (the Rock) with the Rod, and the streams (of grace) began to 
flow.” See Roma Sotterranea, by Northccte and Brownlow, Vol. If. p. 318. 
This is all the more remarkable as S. Paul (Hebr. x, 21) had compared Moses with 
Christe 17; 


Q 


434 THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER, 


“ continuance of the Church, humanly speaking [ Matth. vir. 24, 
25] is assured.” There are many others, no doubt, who read_ 


it with different eyes ; some even have a vision so keen and 
penetrating as to discern in our Lord’s words a clear protest 


against the Papacy !?5 How loath men are to wake up from. 


flattering dreams, and to shake off familiar fancies ! 

12. It has also been maintained that Peter’s Primacy 
extended no further than his own communion, i.e. the Jewish 
converts; in other words it was bounded by his Apostolic labours 
among the circumcision. A most arbitrary limitation! As if 
the stability of a house were assured, by one portion, and that 
the lesser, resting on the rock while the larger was built on 
sand! Our Lord’s words, we are quite aware, are only a 
metaphor, and metaphors cannot be stretched beyond their 
compass. Neither however, can they, if used at all, be inept 
and inapplicable. Now unless Christ meant that Peter is in 
the social structure of the Church what a foundation is to a 
building, the application in the present instance would be 
utterly absurd. Besides this, the above limitation is excluded by 
the words that follow. “ And the gates of hell shall not prevail 
against tt.” Hades or hell, in the language of the Bible, is a 
strong place, a prison, through whose gate he who enters never 
returns.” The gate itself is the symbol of strength and power, 
Is. xxiv. 12). Accordingly it might seem that the sense of 
dur Lord’s words is: So firm is the Church built on thee, that 
it is even stronger than the gates of hell. This would be, as it 
were, a first and immediate view: but on further consideration, 
we know that Hades is aggressive, that is, it pulls down and 


destroys all created things, in as much as nothing can resist - 


the inevitable doom of dissolution. The Greek word KATUTX VO) 
—to master, overcome, speaks decidedly for this interpretation. 


25 Grau, ap. Zéckler, i. 580. 

26. Weiss, Leben Jesu, ii. 274. Langen, Onjehl, p. 13. 

a7 Canticl., viii. 6. Job, xi. 8° xxxviii. 17. Is. xxxviii. ro. Ivil. 0-3, PS ix ae 
cvil. 18. Wisd. xvi, 13. Luke xvi. 23. Acts ii. 27. 31. Apoc. i. 185 xx, 13. 
Matth, xi, 23. Luke x. 15. For passages from Classics, see Sepp, v. 106. 


—_ 


; 
} 
% 
# 


THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER, 435 


Hades will irrevocably dissolve and devour everything except 
the Church, which will be able to withstand all the natural 
forces of dissolution. If this be so, it follows that no created 
power, whether visible and material, or invisible and spiritual, 
can ever destroy the Church built upon Peter. Hades, more- 
over, is the dark and gloomy abode of the lost spirits, or again 
where the damned are mightily tormented (Luc. xvi. 23), the 
gchenna of the New Testament. Hence the Fathers, in inter- 
preting the words, “And the gates of hell shall not prevail 
against it,” had in view the attacks made by Satan, and the evil 
spirits cn the work of Christ. And rightly so. For not only 
does the first interpretation we have given, imply this extension, 
but Christ constantly spoke of the prince of darkness whom He 
had encountered, at the beginning of His public life, as the 
great adversary of mankind and of Himself. And again (Luke 
xx) He had said: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has desired you 
‘to sift you as wheat.” The Apostles, too, constantly warned the 
faithful against the powers of darkness (Ephes. vi. 12), and their 
adversary going about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may 
devour (I Peter v. 8). Moreover, under the gates of hell, the 
fathers comprised every work and instrument of the devil, such 
as sins and sinners, heresies and heretics,*8 persecutors and so 
forth. But Christ, says S. Chrysostom, has made a fisherman 
stronger than any rock, has made the Church immovable 
amidst the angry waters, the opposing waves and fiery floods; 
and even were the whole world to fight against it, it will be 
impregnable against all assaults. 

13.* Whatever particular interpretation the Fathers may 
give of the text, they are all agreed that the Church is founded 


38 As to sins, Ambr., Ja Luc. vi. 99: As to Heresies, Epiph. xxx. 12; Lyxiv. 14. 
Ancor. c. 9. Theodor., Ep. 14. Max. Conf., £f. 13. Joann. Damasc., De 
vecta Sent. n. 4. Howmil. in Transfig. n. 6. Cassian.. De Jacarn. iii. 15. 
As tc persecutions, Chyrs., Homdd. in Hebr. xxi. 3. De Inser. Act, ii. 1. 
Cyrill. Aiex. In Zach. xii. 9. Ambros., /# Bono Mort. n. 56. As to sinners 
and heretics, Isidor. Pelus , ZAzs¢. 1, 238. Leo. Sermo. Li. 1. Ep. x. 1. Primas., 
Ad Atoc. xxi. See Langen, Kirchenviter, p. 127. Schanz. Comment. in 
Matth, pe 378; in Marc. p. 278 


436 THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 


upon S. Peter, and that it will consequently last to the end of 
time.” It would argue shortsightedness in the commentator, 
who would allow himself to be perplexed by the three statements 
(1) that Christ is the head and foundation of the Church,*° (2) 
that Peter is the same, and (3) that all the Apostles are the 
foundation. [Eph. 1. 20]. Swo guisgue modo; Each one in 
his own way, is the plain and obvious answer. The Church 
is a complex and organic institution. There is no more oppo- 
sition between Christ and the Apostles than there is between 
Christ and the Father. Christ is the author of divine truth 
and grace, the fountain and source of spiritual blessings. He 
was moreover the first visible teacher and dispenser of the 
same; the Apostles after Him are neither authors nor foun- 
tains, but channels and instruments of truth and grace, and 
they are certainly the visible teachers and dispensers of His 
truth and grace. At the head of the dispensers of the mysteries 
of God stands Peter. S. Zeo the Great has well expressed it 
when he says: “Since I am the inviolable rock, and the 


*‘corner-stone which makes both one,—the foundation beside. 


“which none can lay another, yet thou also art a rock, because 
“by My power thou receivest firmness, in order that by partici- 
“pation thou mayest have in common what, in respect of 
“power, is proper to Me.”%! The saying of S. Augustine, 
that the ‘ Church is built upon a rock, whence Peter received 
his name,” became the common property of after ages. SS. 
Gregory the Great says: ‘For who does not know, that the 
‘‘holy Church is built upon the firmness of the Apostle-prince, 
‘““who derived the strength of his spirit from his name ;—for 
“he was called Peter by [Him who is] the Rock? To him 
“also the Word of truth said: To thee I will give the keys of 
“the kingdom of heaven. And, again: Simon, son of John, 
“lovest thou me? Feed my sheep.” S Thomas also adopts 
the exp.anation of S. Leo: “Upon this rock, that is, Christ, 
#9 Langen, Unjehlbarkeit, ii. 42. 


305° FP Cor. Tite 25 x. 4.001 Pet. tig, 8; 
32 Sermo. iv. 2. August., Ja Joann. Tract. 124. §. Gregor. M., Ef. vil. 40. cf. v: 18. 


, —r_ 


k 
; 
¥ 
; 
* 


THE PRIMACY OF S, PETER, 437 


*in order to have a foundation and to impart strength to her 
“that is built upon it; or, again, upon this rock, that is, upon 
‘thee, because thou receivest from me [the power of] being a 
“rock. And as I am a rock, so I shall build on thee as a rock. 
**But how? Are both Christ and Peter the foundation? We 
‘answer that Christ is the foundation of Himself, but Peter is 
“the foundation in as much as he has the confession of Christ 
‘and is His representative.” In this sense it may be admitted 
that the Patristic interpretation, according to which the rock is 
Christ, or faith in Christ, or Peter, the prince of the Apostles, 
the first confessor of this faith, was prevalent until the time of 
Innocent III.” But it in no way excludes the Primacy ; rather 
it establishes and explains its various causes and relations. 
Christ, Peter, Peter’s faith are essential and necessary elements 
of the Primacy. 

14.* As regards the relation of Peter to the other Apostles, 
who are also called the foundation of the Church [ Ephes. 1. 20], 
it really explains itself. Peter is the rock and foundation, in 
as much as he is the Vicar of Christ, holds the power and 
authority of Christ, and is the chief dispenser of His mysteries. 
But the other Apostles receive power and authority in the same 
kingdom and from the same source (Matthewxviit. 18. xxv, 1 Q. 
John xx. 22. Acts 1. 8). Now plain common sense will suggest 
that this further act of our Lord cannot have been meant to 
annul the other act whereby He clearly promised and conferred 
the Primacy on Peter (Matthew xvi. 16. Luke xxi. 22. John 
XXJ. 15-17). The two acts must, if possible, be brought into 
harmony. Nor is this a difficult task. The question resolves 
itself into a very simple one: Does the Primacy of one admit of 
a share in its power by many? The answer cannot be 
doubtful. The Apostles, therefore, participated in the same 
power and authority which Peter received from Christ. The 
power and authority of Christ is one, as the truth and grace 
of Christ is one. It is communicable, but not divisible. It 


. 32 Langen, Un/ehlbarkeit, ii. 42. 


438 THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER, 


would be divided if each Apostle had received supreme and 
universal, that is, absolutely independent power. But since 
they form an organic body with a head, it is only shared and 
communicated. And certainly the share of each is as complete 
as it can be short of the Primacy. They are, one and all, infallible 
organs and witnesses of revelation ; each and all have universal 
jurisdiction ; they had the power, and exercised it, of founding 


and governing Churches in different parts of the world, and of | 


issuing commands in every particular Church, of ordaining and 
appointing bishops, whose jurisdiction should be limited to a 
definite place. Thus they all co-operated in the work of estab- 
lishing the Apostolic Churches which, in their turn, became, in 
some sense, the pillars and foundations of other Churches. The 
word ‘foundation’ may be taken relatively or absolutely, and 
in the relative sense it admits of considerable elasticity. The 
Synagogue, for instance, and the Old Testament may be called 
the foundation of the Church, and S. Paul really calls them 
so in Ephes. 1, where he says that the Church is founded 
upon the Apostles and Prophets. 

15. Hitherto we have been considering only the first half of 
the great Petrine passage in S. Matthew. But there is yet another 
clause, not less important. Our Lord goes on to repeat and, as 
it were, explain the promise made under the metaphor of a 
rock by a new and distinct, and yet withal kindred figure of 
speech. “ And J will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of 
“heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, tt shall be 
“bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on 
“earth, tt shall be loosed also in heaven.” This portion of the 
text is as certain critically as the preceding ; nor is there any 
reason for separating the two portions from one another. The 
cnange of metaphor, as well as the new shading of language 
which it entails is easy and natural. To hand over the keys 
is a symbol of the delivery either of house or property itself, or 
33 Is, xxii. 22. Is. vi. 6. Luke xi. 52. Apoc. i. 18; iii. 7; ix. x3; xi. 1% As to 


the custom of other nations, see Sepp, v. c. 38; Klee, Dogmatiki. 116; Wiseman, 
Lecture viti. on Catholic Church, p. 270. 


BSG * a 


the 


bat 4 
-, 


PRL! OY, erm 


THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 439 


of power and government over house or town. Whoever 
holds the keys of a place is, for the time being, its master, 
It rests with him to permit or refuse access to it, to deter- 
mine the internal arrangements, and to make provision for 
all its needs. Thus the bride, according to a Roman cus- 
tom, received the keys of her husband’s house the first time 
she entered it after her marriage. When, therefore our 
Lord uttered these words, He had in mind not a mere 
door-keeper, but the steward or administrator, the mas- 
ter and ruler.“ Of course the idea of door-keeper (jan/- 
tor) is included, and hence the ancients frequently style 
Peter a janitor.® But not every janitor is alike. Thus we 
see that the one metaphor completes and explains the other. 
The former describes the position in which Peter stands to 
the building as a whole, the latter his relation to each and 
all of the living stones of which the edifice is made up. 
Peter has charge and care of all who take refuge in this 
house. And in it they dwell in perfect security and safety, 
forit stands upon arock. On the phrase ‘ kingdom of heav- 
en ' we have spoken at sufficient length in chapter 11. The 
figure of the keys of God’s kingdom is thoroughly biblical, 
as we may see both from the Old and New Testament, and 
especially from the Apocalypse. Peter, then, according to 
our Lord’s words is to be the supreme ruler and head of the- 
Church of Christ onearth. The exercise of the power of the 
keys is represented as an act of binding and loosing. This 
requires a word of explanation. It would appear that this 
phrase was in use at that time. Thus the Rabbis were said 
to bind and loose, in as much as they declared what was 
right or wrong, licit or illicit. Hence to bind was to for- 
bid, to loose was to allow or permit. In this sense we read 
in S. Matthew [xxui. 13] and S. Luke [x1. 52] that the 
Scribes and Pharisees and Lawyers have the key of knowl- 
edge, and shut the kingdom of heaven against men by 
misinterpreting the law, and mislead the people by 


34. Lake. xit. 52,1 Cor; iv. 1... Titi. 7. 


35 Aster., Homz/, viii. Felix, EZ, iv. 5. See Langen, Kirchenvdter, p. 132. 


140 THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 


foisting on them precepts of men instead of preparing them for 
the Messianic kingdom. Thus what the strict school of 
Shammai would bind, the laxer schocl of Hiliel would loose. 
In Josephus,* too, there is a passage wherein he says of the 
Pharisees, that they knew how to insinuate themselves into the 
grace of Alexandra, and usurp all the power, so that they were 


able to banish or recall whomsoever they would, and to bind > 


and loose as they pleased. According to this acceptation of 
the word, Peter would be a true and safe interpreter of God’s 
word ; he would have the true understanding of revelation, and 
the true faith, and be able to declare the same to all who wish 
to enter the kingdom of heaven ; he would be, in a word, the 
Judex controverstarum > 

16.* ‘This interpretation, however, is far too narrow for the 
words of our text and its subject matter. And, indeed, in 
words of such vast importance as the present, we are justified 
in attaching full force to every word. Now our Lord says to 
Peter: (1) Whatsoever thou shalt bind or loose. This is an 
absolutely universal statement. (2) This binding and loosing 
is in the kingdom of heaven—i.e., the Church of the Messias ; 
but here surely there are the treasures of grace as well as truth ; 
consequently the Keys are not limited to the department of 
knowledge. (3) Then there is the further addition that it 
‘shall be bound or loosed z” heaven.” What Peter binds and 
looses on earth, is, at the very same moment and by the 
very same act, ratified 72 heaven. But such an assurance 
will apply far better to his acts of ruling and governing than to 
his teaching which, since it is already divine truth, needs no 
special ratification. (4) Were the Keys limited to knowledge 


35 Felix, Efist. t7. ad Acac. 

35 See Schanz, Commen. in Lue. p. 333. Eucher., £73. Form. c.8. Max. Tur. Homi. 
116, 

a Joseph., Flav., De Fell. Jud. i. 5, 2. Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. et Taln. in iv. Ev. 
Kd. ii. p. 378. Schoettgen, Hor. Hebr. ii. p- 894. Sepp. Leben Jesu, v. 117. 
Passaglia remarks on the passage of Josephus: ** Ttaque dety Kat Ave 
idem -Josepho valet ac in consortium THS e£ove las venire.” 


‘ ~ a Pa aha, 


Natalie? 


mel A eye 


THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 441 


in this text, they would have to be so limited also in Mat- 
thew xvill. 18, where the binding and loosing evidently re- 
fer to Church government. From these considerations we 
conclude that Christ promised Peter the power of binding 
and loosing whatsoever is to be bound and loosed in His 
new kingdom. He gives him to hold the Keys in the way 
He Himself, not the Pharisees, had held them. The v/y- 
cula or ties, in a living spiritual society like the Christian, 
are naturally of amoral nature. There is vinculum legis, the 
tie of law, revealed truth holding the first place ; winculum 
curpae, the tie of sin and guilt ; vinculum poenae, the tie of 
punishment. All these Peter can make or unmake. And 
when Peter imposes them, men must submit, because these 
ties are ratified in heaven. Peter opens and no one closes, 
he shuts and no man opens. He holds the Keys of the 
house of David. 

From the earliest times this passage and the power of the 
keys have been applied to the forgiveness and retention of 
sins. It is so applied in the edict of Callistus. Tertullian, 
far from denying it, asserts in the teeth of his Montanism, 
that in his time it was considered to belong, not only to Peter, 
but to the whole Church.** The immediate reason for re- 
ferring this passage to the forgiving and retaining of sins 
has to be sought, no doubt, in the parallel passages of Mat- 
thew xvi. 18, and John x. 23; though the reference can- 
~ not be justified on biblical or. philological grounds. For, 
in the first place, there is no mention of sins in this pas- 
sage, and secondly, there is no warrant in biblical usage 
for the dinding, though there is for the loosing of sins.* 
Still, by implication, all these powers are contained in the 
promise made to Peter that he should hold the Keys of the 
kingdom of heaven. The direct force and meaning of the 
words is, not merely that Peter is chief teacher of truths 


36 De Pud. c. 21. Hagemann, Rom. Kirche, p. 54, 624. Euseb., H, £.v. 2, Orig., 
Chrysost., Hieron., Faust., Caesar., Euthym., Theoptyl. Dollinger, Christenthum, 
Pp. 342. 

37 Is. xl. 2. Eccli. xxviii. 2, I Esdr, ix. 13. 


38 Dtisterdieck, Miiller, Keil, and others. See Meyer, p. 353, Note 2. 


442 THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER, 


or chief dispenser of the mysteries of the house of God,” 
but that he has supreme power to judge who are worthy 
and who are unworthy subjects, and to grant or refuse ad- 
mittance to the kingdom of heaven accordingly j Bede]. In 
this sense we find the Keys used among the heathen as the 


symbol of the judge of the dead—e.g., Isis and Serapis, . 


Pluto and Aeacus.” 

17. Peter, therefore, has a threefold key: the key of 
knowledge, the key of jurisdiction, and the key of paradise. 
He teaches, he rules and governs, he sanctifies. To his 
teaching and ruling and judgment: the faithful must sub- 
mit, if they would be ‘saved. This is the Primacy of S. 
Peter, as understood not only in the 13th century by the 
Schoolmen, but long before by the Fathers. Thus 5S. 
Chrysostom says: ‘“To a mortal man has He (Christ) 
‘“ given the power over everything that is in heaven, when 
‘He gave him the keys. This (key-bearer) has extended 
‘“ the Church everywhere upon the earth, and has made it 
“stronger than heaven.’ S. Augustine says: ‘‘ Thus 
““fares the Church by blessed hope in this troublesome 
‘life : of which Church the Apostle Peter, by reason of the 
‘“ Primacy of his Apostleship, is by figurative generality the 
‘representative. For as it regards himself in his proper 
“person, by nature he was one man, by grace one Chris- 


““tian, by more abundant grace one and withal the chief . 


“Apostle : but when it was said to him: To thee ‘I will 
“give the keys, etc.,’ he denoted the universal Church, 
‘which in this world by diverse temptations, like as by 
‘rains, floods, tempests, is shaken and falleth not, because 
“it is founded upon the rock, super petram, from which 
‘’ Peter had his name. For it isnot a Petro petra, but Petrus 
“a petra . . . just as Christ is not so called from Chris- 
“tian, but Christian from Christ . . . . For the rock 
“was Christ: upon which foundation Peter himself was 


39 Ahrens, Das Amt der Schlissel 1864. DOllinger, p. 31. Schegg, zn h.2. 

40 -SEppy V. 114. 

4t Homtl. in Matth. 54. 2. 

42 In Joann. Tr. 124.5. In Ep. Joann. ad Parthos, Tr. 10,1. De Unit. c. 21,60. ln 
Ps. 108, 1. Sermo 76,13; 295, 2. De Doctr. Christ. i. 18. 


THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 443 


“also built.” In this passage the great Doctor expressly affirms 
the Primacy and chief Apostleship of Peter, while explaining at 
the same time that Peter is not the original and principal rock, 
but a vicarious rock, a rock not by nature but by grace. And 
wien he says that in Peter the universal Church received the 
power of the keys, he means to assert the perpetuity of the keys. 
These are in the Church as founded upon the rock. For he 
continues thus: ‘The Church, therefore, which is founded in 
‘Christ (as the natural and principal rock) did #” Peter [as the 
“vicarious rock and by grace] receive from Him the keys of 
“the kingdom of heaven, that is the power of binding and 
“loosing sins.” Tertullian had said the same thing before: 
“Remember that the Lord hath given the keys to Peter, and 
“through Peter to the Church.” S$. Hilary thus recapitulates 
the significance of the promise: **O happy thou that in re- 
“ceiving a new name wast made the foundation and rock of 
“the Church, and wast worthy of having the Church built upon 
“thee! ‘Thou who wast to loose the bonds of hell, the gates 
“of tartarus, and every lock of sin! © happy door-keeper of 
“heaven, to whose will the keys of the eternal entrance were 
“committed, whose judgment on earth has, by anticipation, 
“force in heaven so that what is bound or loosed on earth, 
“obtains judicial force in heaven,” # Yet Hilary has not for- 
gotten the other Apostles, They also are the eyes and the 
light of the Church; they are tie mediators and have the 
fulness of Christ’s power. He saw no contradiction between 
the Primacy of Peter and the Apostolate of the others, 

18.* On the strength of Matthew xviii. 18 it is often argued 
that all the Apostles were promised exactly the same power as 
Peter in Matthew xvi. 17; the difference being no other than 
that it was promised to Peter first and singly. And this view is 
thought to derive confirmation from Matthew xxviu. 18 seq., 
where all alike receive mission and power to teach and baptize 


43 Tertull., 4d Scaf. c. 10. Hilar., Jn Matth.c. 16.m. 9 4» Ps. 131.n. 4 See 
Nirschl, Patrologie, ii. 92. 


444 THE PRIMACY OF S, PETER, 


in the name of Christ. But we have already said the two 
promises of our Lord must and can be easily reconciled, Why 
should not S. Matthew’s order be followed ? He mentions first 
one great act, and then another, done by our Lord in the 
organization of His Church. Just as all the Apostles, in 
Christ’s life-time, share in His mission and power, so, after His 
departure, they were all to have the fullest share in the power 
entrusted to Peter. The pretended pavallelism between Matthew 
Xvi. and xvi. has no real existence. ‘The two differ both in 
words and in matter. Our Lord docs not promise the Apostles 
in so many words that they shall be the rock of the edifice, or 
have the keys of the kingdom. They are promised what occurs 
in the last clause of Matthew xvi 19,—what we have called the 
exercise of the power of the keys. They have, therefore, ac- 
cording to Christ’s institution, authority and power in His 
Church founded upon the rock, Peter. In this way justice is 
done to both texts.* Looking at Matthew xvii. sclely from 
an exegetical point of view, we can only glean from it that the 
Apostles were to have authority in the Church, but how much 
and in what manner, whether in their corporate or individual 
capacity, it is impossible to infer from the passage by itself.T 
That each one shared in its plentitude, short of the Primacy, as 
® On this subject, that is, the relation of the Apostles to Peter, and of Peter to Christ, 
S. Leo’s commentary (Sermo ii.) will ever stand unsurpassed in its directness 
and simplicity. We quote it in the criginal: ‘Cum multo utilius multoque sit 
“‘dignius, ad beatissimi Petri apostoli gloriam contemplandam aciem mentis 
 attollere, et hunc diem in illius potissimum veneratione celebrare, qui ab ipso 
§¢omnium charismatum fonte tam copiosis est irrigationibus inundatus: wu? cum 
© wulta solus acceperit, nthilin quenguam sine tllius participatione transierit. 
©. |. et tamen de toto mundo unus Petrus eligitur, qui et universarum 
“ gentium vocationi ef omnibus apostolis cunctisgue ecclesiae patribus praepona- 
“tur, ut quamvis in populo dei multi sacerdotes sint multique pastores, ovenes 
“* tamen proprie regat Petrus, quos principaliter regit et Christus. Magnum et 
*‘ mirabiie, dilectissimi, huic viro consortium potentiae suae tribuit divina dig- 
“natio: et si quid cum eo commune ceteris voluit esse principibus, nunquam nisi 
“ per ipsum dedit, quidquid aliis non negavit.” In some Editions this Sermon is 


marked as I. 


¢ According to Ellicott (Comment. in h. 1.) there is no authority whatever conferred 
upon the Apostles in thistext. ‘Tellthe Church’ means, appeal te public opinion, 
or, as society is now constituted, to the State. This, however, does not prevent 
him from urging the passage against the claim of Peter's Primacy! A more 
cynical interpretation of Holy Scripture, than that of chapters xvi. and xviii. of S 
Matthew by this Anglican Bishop, it would be difficult to imagine. Tr. 


DE 6 ace 


THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 445 


far as was necessary for the first foundation of the 
churches, we know from other passages of scripture. As 
each Apostle possessed the Apostolate in its perfection, the 
practical scope of the Primacy was naturally less than in 
Postapostolic times. Hence some of the Fathers say that 
all the Apostles were equal in power.“ 

S. Leo, the Great, in his second sermon speaks thus: 
‘’ There remains firm, then, the disposition of truth, and S. 
‘’ Peter has not abandoned that guidance of the Church, 
‘‘ which he had undertaken ; he still perseveres in the firm- 
‘ness he has received. He is preferred to the others inas- 
“much as he is called rock, and proclaimed to be the 
‘foundation, and appointed doorkeeper of the kingdom 
‘‘ of heaven, and constituted judge with power of binding 
‘and loosing, so that his judgment has force also in heav- 
‘en. From the mystery of his names we may learn, how 
“close is his fellowship with Christ (gualts tpst cum Christo 
’ esset societas). He (Peter) is now discharging his duty 
‘with greater fulness and power (Dlentus et potentius). And 
“with Him, by whom he was glorified, he discharges every 
“part of the duties of his office. If therefore anything is 
“done well by us, or any matter judged aright, or any- 
‘‘ thing obtained from God’s mercy by our daily supplica- 
"tions, it is (really) due to the work and merits of him, in 
“whose chair his power lives, and his authority shines.”’ 

So, again, when the Fathers appeal, as they do at times, 
to Matthew xvi. in order to prove the Apostolic succes- 
sion or the institution of the Episcopal power in general, 
they have no intention of denying the Primacy ; but, 
like S. Cyprian, they view it as ¢#e one and indivisible 
power of Christ, shared and participated in by many, 
that are one body; and they are one body by means of 
their head. This was the reason, as Cyprian argues, why | 
Christ gave His power first to one and then to others, 
to show that it makes for unity and not for division. 
Unity begins with one. The Primacy of Peter and its per- 


46 Cypr., De Unit. c. 4. Ep. 70,3. Hieron. Adv, Jov. i. 14, 


446 THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 


petuity, as Catholics have urged since the days of Irenzus, 
Tertullian, and Leo, down to the Vatican Council, is the guar. 
antee not only of the faith, but also of the legitimate Apostolic 
power of the Episcopate. The sole reason why they were so 
solicitous for the Roman succession, was because Peter was 
believed to live on in his Apostolic See. “ Does any one,” 
asks Cyprian, “who abandons or resists the chair of Peter, 
“upon whom the Church is.built, imagine that he is in tke 
“Church?” In the same way, if Fathers appeal to the 
authority of Councils, they are not thereby denying the 
Primacy of the Roman Church. Popes, like Leo and Gregory, 
do the same}; yet no one will suspect them of tampering with 
the rights of the Apostolic See. The powers that are in the 
Church are in harmony and unity. As Christ is the light of the 
world, so are the Apostles, but each in his own way. As Peter 
has the keys, so have the others, yet not in the same manner 
and measure.#7 
20. The second special Petrine passage,* having reference 

to the Primacy, is found in S. Luke xx. 31. 32. In runs thus: 

“And the Lord said; Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired 

“to have you that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed 

“for thee that thy faith fail not: and thou being once converted, 

“confirm thy brethren.” The full meaning of these words must 

be viewed in the light of the whole context. The chapter opens 

with an account of the last supper (1-20). ‘Then follows the 

prediction of Judas’ betrayal (21-23), and the significant fact is 

mentioned that “ ¢here was also a strife among themselves, which 

of them should seem to be greater,” whereupon our Lord correc- 

ted their worldly and heathen notions by setting be/ore them 

from His own example the true Christian ideas of ruling and 


47 Cypr., £%.37,1. Hilar., J# Ps. 86,2. Aug., Ep. 53,2 Theodor., Ja Lzech, 43, 
16. Cyrill. Alex., Zi Js. 44, 23. 


* The author leaves out, of set purpose, as he tells us, the Petrine passage from S, 
Luke xxii. 31, 32, in order to treat of it in the question of Papal infallibility (chap 
xiv.) We prefer to have it in its proper place Our commentary on the passage 
is based upon his. 7+ 


—— 


anne 


oa 


a, 


OE Ne is SMM IN DFS a ul lay ate hehe ae 


’ 
* 


. 
j 


the 


vig 


' 


THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 447 


governing (24-27). Then follows the still more significant fact 
-—viz., the promise that they should be rulers and princes, 
“And I dispose to you, as my Father hath disposed to me, a 
“k:ngdom,” because they have continued with Him in His 
temptations. |28-30]. Here our Lord has two things in mind. 
The future Church wherein the Apostles hold sway, and the 
terrible trial and temptation that was seemingly to put its 
existence in jeopardy. If the Apostles fail to persevere, then 
will His kingdom be cast to the winds. To bring about their 
failure the enemy of Christ and of His kingdom will do his 
utmost endeavour. The approaching passion of Christ is lis 
hour. He levels his attack against the Shepherd in order the 
more effectively to master the flock. And now, almost in the 
face of the apparent victory of Satan, it is necessary to assure 
them that the enemy will not prevail; that His kingdom will 
survive ; that they will be its rulers; that the Church shall be 
reared upon the unfaltering rock, as before promised ; but that 
€re it come to pass, a great change would have to be wrought 
in them all, especially in him who was to be the rock. This 
assurance concerning the future kingdom of Christ and the 
position of the Apostles in face of the coming trial is therefore 
conveyed to Peter in the words that follow : ‘Simon, Simon, 
“behold Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you 
“as wheat. But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not ; 
“and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” In 
other words: As by the Father’s revelation thou didst firmly 
confess the faith of my divinity, whereon I promised to build 
my Church upon thee as on a firm rock, against which the 
gates of hell should not prevail, so I now tell thee that Satan’s 
efforts are in vain, that thy faith shall not fail, and that rising 
from a momentary fall, and after being further completely 
changed [once converted] by the power of the Holy Ghost [see 
John xx1.], thou shalt in very truth be the strength or rock of 
thy brethren. The parallelism between this passage and that 
in Matthew xv1., from a juxtaposition of the two texts, seems 


4438 THE PRIMACY OF S, PETER. 


to us to be undeniable. We hold that Christ is repeating here 
the promise that He gave there. Any interpretation less com- 
prehensive will fail to do justice to the entire context of the 
chapter; whereas the above interpretation supplies a complete 
answer to all the questions raised in the chapter ; e.g., who is 
to be the greater among them ; how the greater js to be, as if 
were, the servant of all; how the kingdom disposed to them 
by Christ is to be firmly established in spite of apparent 
collapse ; how Christ’s promise made to all and to Peter in 
particular is to be fulfilled. Certain minor philological differ- 
ences, e.g., the precise meaning of ‘once converted,” or of 
“thy brethren” cannot affect in substance the interpretation 
given. The reason why taith alone is directly mentioned and 
connected with the office of confirming the brethren, is the 
same as in S, Matthew. Firmness of faith is the fundamental 
condition of the Primacy, as the teaching of the faith is its 
first and chief function. It is noteworthy that three of the 
Evangelists divide among themselves the honour of recording 
the Primacy: Matthew the promise, Luke the repetition of the 
promise, John the fulfilment. Mark (Peter’s Gospel) stands 
alone in his silence. 

21. The third special Petrine passage is in S. John xx1. 
15-17, and contains the account of Peter’s installation in the 
Primacy. ‘‘ When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to 
Simon Peter, Simon (son) of John, lovest thou Ale more than 
“these? He satth'to Him: Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I 
“Jove Thee. He saith te him: Feed My lambs. He saith to 
“Rim agains Simon (son) of Jehn lovest thou Me. He saith 
“to Him, Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee. He 
“satth to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third 
“time: Simon (son) of John, lovest thou Mee eter was 
“orieved because He satd to Him the third time, dovest 
“thou Me? and he said to Him: Lord, Thou knowest all 
“ things. Thou knowest that I love Thee. He said to h.ms 
“ Feed my sheep.” tis with this account of S. Peter’s Primacy, 


ss | ee 


THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 449 


that S. John ends his Gospel, and we shall hardly be wrong in 
Supposing that he wrote the whole- appendix to his Gospel for 
its sake. He had mentioned the change of name promised to 
Peter at the first meeting (John 1. 42), but, as his manner is, » 
he omitted the promise of the Primacy, as the Synoptists had 
already recorded it. He has indeed chronicled Peter’s con- 
fession of Christ’s divinity, simply to mark the crisis through 
which things were passing in Galilee. But having mentioned the 
denial of Peter along with several other noteworthy incidents 
during the history of the passion, he could not as it were, take 
such sad leave of the great Apostle. His picture of Peter 
would have been misleading and almost an occasion of scandal. 
As it is the critical school have taken scandal. But, by record- 
ing the wonderful scene described above, which sheds such 
lustre upon Peter’s character and office, John has removed all 
pretext for scandal. At the same time he has furnished us 
with a valuable supplement to the accounts given by S. 
Matthew and S. Luke. Of an Anti-petrine tendency there is 
not the faintest shadow in this chapter. The threefold denial, 
says S. Augustine, is met by the threefold question and 
profession of love and humility. Now if the question of our 
Lord had had no other purpose than to give Peter an cppor- 
tunity of making reparation for his fall, it would any how prove 
that he was restored again to our Lord’s love and friendship, 
and also to the promised office and dignity. But, in reality, 
the question of our Lord implies much more. ‘That Peter is 
“elevated here, is unmistakable.”48 The reason of the threefold 
question is not because Christ had any doubt as to Peter’s love, 
nor because He merely wished to give him the opportunity of 
a threefold reparation, but because He wished to give emphasis 
to the charge wherewith He was about to entrust him.49 A 
parallel to this is to be seen in Genesis XLII. 9. 12. 14, where 


48 Hase, p. 122. 
49 Ambros.. /# Lue. x. 175. Cyrill. Alex., [# Joann. xii. 64. Chrysost., Hem. tn 
Taann, 88, 1. Stapleton, Costrov. ii. 6, 10. 


45° THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 


Joseph gives triple expression to his suspicion as to the cause 
of the arrival of his brethren in Egypt. 

In interpreting the text itself, the whole scene and the 
circumstances under which the words were spoken and the 
charge delivered must be kept in view. John introduces it with 
the account of the miraculous draught of fishes, in the capture 
of which Peter is a chief agent. The scene enacted on another 
occasion and recorded by S. Luke v. 1-10, when Christ said to 
Peter “ Fear not from henceforth thou shalt catch men,” is 
here repeated with the additional circumstance carefully noted 
by Jobn, that, this time, the net did not break, though full of 
large fishes to the number of 153, and that Peter dragged it to 
land. ‘This signified, says S. Jerome, that he would bring into 
the net of Christ the multitude of the Gentiles. Then, again, - 
as in 5. Matthew xvi., so here our Lord addresses Simon Peter 
directly and with his full name, to mark the solemnity of the 
occasion. He demands a confession of Peter’s love, because 
love is above all necessary for one who is to feed the flack of 
Christ. “The good shepherd gives his life for his sheep” 
(x. 11.15). “If it was a sign of fear,” says S. Augustine, “to 
“deny the Shepherd, :t is now to be a duty of love to tend 
“the flock of the Lord.” 5° Phe words “ more than these,” are 
in spite of the denial, very natural after what the evangeiist had 


bf 


related in the earlier part of his Gospel (v1. 68; xu. 6. 37; 
XVII. I0.,) and imply no disrespect or depreciation of the . 
others, especially when compared with Matthew xvi. 18; 
XXV1. 33. Luke xx1. 32. The intensity of love, after all, was 
a gift of Gad, and if it entitled the possessor to a greater 
dignity, it also demanded a greater humility and suffering. So 
far then, we have a kind of parallelism between the promise of 
the Primacy and its bestowal. In the former Peter excelled by 
his profession of faith, in the latter by his profession of love. 
. From a motive of humility, Peter, in his answer, omits the 
words “more than these,” and he chooses the werd diAey 


so Jn Joann. Tr. 123, 5 


THE PRIMACY OF §S, PETER, 45! 


instead of dyarav used by Christ, in token of his internal 
emotion “non solum animi sed etiam corporis sui circa Dei 
“cultum flagrantiam.”®! The Vulgate has twice “feed my 
“lambs ” (agnos) and the third time “feed my sheep ” (aves) 
and each time the word /asce (feed) ; while the Greek has the 
first time Pooke Ta dpvia pov, motiawve Ta mpoPara jov the 
second time, and Pooxe ra rpoBara pov the third time. The 
different shading of the Greek text is certainly not without im- 
portance. Peter is to feed, with the rich pasture of truth and 
grace, and he is to shepherd, that is to guide and rule the 
flock." We are all familiar with the Homeric zoupéves Aady, 
the shepherds i.e. rulers of peoples, and again, with the biblical 
usage of this metaphor [John x. Ezech. xxxvut. 24. Ps. xxu. 
1 (comp. the Hebrew and Vuig.) Mich. v. 2. comp. Matth. 1. 6. 
(Greek text) Acts xx. 28]. Consequently there can be no 
doubt as to the meaning of the metaphor. It is as simple and 
as well known as it is beautiful and expressive. The chie: 
shepherd entrusts to Peter’s care the entire flock of Christ ; his 
voice they are to hear, his steps to follow, from him they are to 
receive the food of their soul, truth and grace, by his laws and 
rules they are to be guided and protected. Peter takes the 
place of Christ, that is, he becomes the visible supreme 
shepherd, guide, ruler ana teacher of all Christians.°3 We may 
well argue that if in these words Christ did not make Petcr 
His vicar on earth, no other words could have done it. To 
say that the whole import of the passage is to restore Peter to 
the grace and favour of Christ and to the position of an 
Apostle, is miserably inadequate to the text and context, and 
is, moreover, rendered quite improbable by other considerations. 
Peter was pardoned immediately after he had fallen. He was 
treated not only as an Apostle, but as the chief Apostle, on the 
morning of the resurrection, and on the Octave day he with the 


sr Ambros. Z. c. 176. 
52 Ps, Ixxix. 2. Jerem. iii. 153 xxiii. 2.4. IV Kings v. 2 Malach, v. 4. 63 vii, 24. 


Matth#ii. 6. “Apoc. ii? 273 °xilw 5 $uxix.-15; 
$3 Chrys. /# Joann. Homil. 88, 1. Sermo. 6 Arnob. Jun., Ad Ps. 138. 


452 THE PRIMACY OF S, PETER. 


others received the Holy Ghost to forgive sins (John xx. 21). 
Among Catholic interpreters there is but one, Cyril of 
Alexandria, who favours this explanation.** We are thus bound 
to conclude that something over and above the common 
Apostolate is here conferred upon Peter, namely, the Primacy 
or Vicarship of Christ. S. Cyprian after referring to this text 
continues thus: “ And although to all the Apostles, after His 
“resurrection, He gives an equal power and says: As the 
‘‘ Father hath sent Me, even so send I you: Receive ye the 
“ Holy Ghost : Whosoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted 
“unto him, and whosoever sins ye retain, they shall be retained. 
“Vet that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His 
“authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. 
“ Assuredly the rest of the Apostles were also the same as was 
* Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and 
“power; but the beginning proceeds from unity ; [and the 
“Primacy is given to Peter that they might be shown one 
“ Church of Christ and one See; and they are all shepherds, 
‘and the flock is one which is fed by all the Apostles with 
“unanimous consent]; which one Church, also, the Holy 
“ Spirit in the song of songs designated in the person of our 
“Tord, and says: My dove, my spotless one, is butone .. . 
“Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church, think 
“that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and 
“resists the Church [who deserts the chair of Peter, upon 
“whom the Church is founded] trust that he is in the 
AC OUrCH aatispe see 

Whether, as some have held, the change of words in lambs 
and sheep is indicative of the different classes of the flock, it is 
difficult to say. S. Ambrose seems to have read agzzt, oviculae, 


54 Ink. 2. Also Thesaur. de Trinit. Assert. 32 Langen, /. ¢. ‘p. 84. Schanz, 
Comm. in h. l. 586. Note 4. 


ss De Unit. c. 4 (Clark’s Transl.) The passages in brackets are those whose 
genuineness is disputed by some, and categorically denied by the English 
Translators. It will easily be seen that the Cathclic argument is independent 
of them. Tr See also Leo, Z%. to, 


=e". eS ho ee 


“>. 


“ : - “ *y 
OS eg ee ee ee ee Se a es a 


THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 453 


oves,* that it is to say children and adults, or, the beginners, 
the advanced, and the perfect in faith. Oves are matres 
agnorum. Hence some interpret it of the ecclesia docens and 
discens,®*®© so that all the flock, the Apostles included, are 
subject to the supreme shepherd, Peter. This inference, if not 
intended by the change of words themselves, is anyhow implied 
as a natural consequence. The Apostles, too, had to remain 
both externally and internally united with their head. Pseudo- 
Augustine remarks on Matthew xvi. 26 that Peter paid for all 
the Apostles, because they were all, according to the words of 
Christ, contained in him. ‘For (Christ) made him the head 
“of them all, so that he should be the shepherd of the flock of 
“the Lord [Matth. xxvi. 41., Luke xxi. 31]. Why does any- 
“one dispute? For Peter He prayed, not for James or John, 
“much less for the others. It is manifest that in Peter they 
“are all Contained and having prayed for Peter he prayed for 
all! 

a2. The Zuthers are unanimous in assigning the office of 
supreme shepherd to Peter. Langen admits that no one in the 
East disputed this perogative of Peter.67 So Origen, Chryso- 
stom, Theophylact, Asterius, Theodoret.58 The Popes, likewise, 
at an early age, interpreted this passage of the special office of 
Chief Shepherd as distinct from the Apostolate. They express 
themselves in sentences like the following: Peter is set over the 
other shepherds; Christ has given him a special participation 
in His own power; against the irruption of wolves, that is, 
false teachers, God has provided a divinely appointed Shepherd, 


® The readings seem to vary considerably. According to Bishop Ellicott the Codex 
Vat. and Paris. have apvia, tpofsatia, mpoBar.a, while the Peschitho 
probably read: dpvia, TpoPar.a, Tpopara, so that a regular gradation 
in the original text is not improbable. Tr. 

36 Isidor. Ep. 8, 2. Aug. Quaest. ex N.7T. n. 75. Bellarmine also. 

57. Kirchenviter, p. 138. ; 

58 Orig., /* Rom. v. 10. Chrysost., De Sacerd. II. 82. 91. 123. Homil. I de Poen. 
Homil. 88 in Joann. Theodor., De Div. Car. (Migne III. p. 1508). Epiph., 
Ancor.c.9. Joan, Damasc., De Transfg. n. 6.9.16. See Langen, Unfehlb. p. 
82. Il. 75. 


454 THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 


saying to Peter: Feed my sheep. It was proper that this office | 
should be committed to him who was firm in faith and strong 


in love. In a Roman synod held in the year 531, a letter of 
Stephen, Metropolitan of Larissa, was read, fully recognizing » 
the Roman Primacy. Gregory the Great remarks that any one 
who ever read the Gospel, must know that Christ had given to 
Peter the care of the entire Church. Bede, Alcuin, and the 
Schoolmen have merely re-echoed these statements. | 
23. Sometimes the Fathers extend the application of the 
text to the whole Church, or even to individual believers. And — 
the reason is obvious. They looked upon S. Peter not only as — 
head of the Church, but also as the pattern and example of all 
Christians. This may be seen more particularly in Chrysos- 
tom’s work on the priesthood. Love, as he argues, is demanded © 
not only of Peter, but also of priests, in fact, of everyone who | 
has even the smallest charge of the flock of Christ. The 
Fathers, as we have already said, view the pastoral office and 
authority as ove in which many have a share. But this supposes 
and implies their organic connection and mutual subordination, ° 
Thus S. Basil and Theodoret apply the passage to al! the 
Anostles as shepherds in the Church, and it may be similarly 
applied to all the bishops, as by $. Augustine ®! and §, Leo ® 
in the passage quoted above. The common saying of the 
Fathers, that what was said to Peter was said to the Church, — 
proves but two things: firstly, that the Primacy is perpetual; 
and secondly, that the entire pastoral office and power in the 
Church is essentially one, as is the water that flows from one- 
source through many channels. Hence Peter and the Church 
were considered as synonymous.®3 The Primacy of Peter was 
universally recognized, so much so that even Alexandria, which 


sg Leo, 4.x. Vigil., Zxcycl. A.D. 552. Febr. 5. See Hefele, II. zee <0. Gregor., - 
IEP IS SAEE ; 

‘60 In Matth. Homil.77, 6. Basil., Const. Mon. 22, 4. Theodor, Jn Jerems 3, 14. 

61 De Agon. Christ. 30. cf. In Joann. Tr. 47, 2. Ps. 108, 1 

62 Sermo II. (al. I). 

63 in Ps.35- Sermoll.n. 5 


THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 455 


was only founded by a disciple of Peter, acquired, like the 
other Petrine Churches, the rank of 2 Patriarchal Church. 

24. What, then is the true meaning -of Peter’s Primacy ? 
What kind of a Primacy was it? Was it a real or only an 
honorary Primacy? Protestants and Old Catholics maintain 
that Peter was primus inter pares, and nothing raore.® But 
the Petrine texts, as explained above, show etearly that a 
I'imacy of jurisdiction, of office, authority ard power was 
conferred on him, To be the rock of the entire edifice, to 
hold the keys thereof for the purpose of binding and loosing, 
to confirm the brethren, to feed and guide the lambs and 
sheep,—are these words of empty honov:? Bo they not clearly 
also appertain primarily to work, power and office? But then, 
it is urged, they mean no more than the work of an Apostle, go 
so that Peter is still only primus inter pares. Verbal quibbling 
aside let it be granted. But then they mean that Peter is 
the Apostle of the Apostles; that his work and off-e and 
authority extends to them while theirs extends neit!:er to him, 
nor to each other, but only to the faithful below them This is 
precisely what Catholics mean by the Primacy. There is a 
certain dependency of the Apostles on Peter, which, in their 
case, was perhaps more theoreticai than practical, while Peter 
is completely independent of them. He is the Vicar of Christ. 
What Christ, when on earth, was to all the Apostles, that was 
Peter to his brethren and to all the faithful after Christ’s 
departure. Anything short of this meaning will fail to do justice 
to the position of Peter as described throughout the New 
Testament, and more especially in the great Petrine texts.* 


64 Langen, Un/ehibarkeit, p. 88. 


65 Langen, Kirchenviter, p. 136. Unfelhb. p. 89. ii. 82. 
* Jet any one read the interpretations of Matthe-w xvi. by Bishop Ellicott, or cf John xxi; 
by Westcott, and he will see how lame and limping, how utterly inadequate and 
unsatisfactory they are. How embarrassed Protestant Commentators feel in 
presence of these three great texts, which stand out of the Gospels like three huge 
Alpine rocks, which they can neither scale nor remove, and must consequently 
svoid. Hence they are obliged, at much inconvenience. to strike out into tortuons 
by-paths, and lose their way amid crooked windings. Whatever these gentlemen 
may think, the texts are of surpassing interest. They were spoken at most critical 
moments, to the most commanding Apostle and dealt with matter of the utmost 
intrinsic importance. Tr. 


456 THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 


Moreover, it is imnossible to reconcile the ¢raditional inter- 
pretation of the Petrine texts with a mere Primacy of honour. 
The statements of the Fathers and Theologians of every age are 
all too clear and explicit upon the supreme authority of Peter 
in the Church. ‘True, there may be here and there passages 
e.g. in Isidore, Bede, Peter Damian, that seem to admit of 
being adversely construed; but is it not the bounden duty of 
an interpreter to reconcile them with the clear and decisive 
statements of the Primacy that occur in other places of their 
works? Had Langen borne this in mind he would have had no 
cause to complain of Peter Damian contradicting himself in 
this respect. At one time, he says, Peter utters views that are 
generally correct and based upon the Bible; at another, he has 
caught the infection of the Papal ideas then beginning to be 
rampant, and sets forth the Pope as the universal bishop, says 
that all doctrine must be derived from him, who has received 
the keys of knowledge and power, and to whom the chair of 
teaching is chiefly (priucipaliter) committed; and hence that 
every one desirous of being instructed in things divine, must 
betake himself to this oracle and teacher. The passages are 
easily reconciled when we remember that Peter Damian, like 
every Catholic, knew that Simon Bar-Jona was not only an 
Apostle but was also the supreme head of the Apostolic College 
and Church, 

The same principles will suffice to explain the famous passage 
of S. Cyprian which we have already quoted. If the words 
were strained, they would not even leave room for a Primacy of 
honour. The other Apostles, he says, were what Peter was; 
but Christ gave power and rank to him first in order to show 
forth the origin of unity. Far from being a difficulty, we hold 
that these words of Cyprian are not only the most concise, but 
also the most correct expression of the Catholic doctrine, just 
as that other and equally celebrated dictum of his: “ Epis- 
“copatus unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur.” 


66 Langen, ii, 95. 


THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 457 


The divine authority and power given by Christ to the Apostles 
and their successors, and consequently exercised by many, he 
ever views in its organic unity. It cannot be power pitted 
against power, or authority against authority ; for it is one, and 
by way of showing that it is one, it resides first in one and 
hen, but not till then, in others; in brief, it is shared and 
participated. This is what Cyprian means by the showing forth 
unity,—a showing forth that is not merely symbolical and 
external, but real and internal. As the rays are one with the 
sua, and the shoots of the plant with its root, so is the power of 
the Apostles one with Peter’s. He is the principle and source 
of unity in the Church. But when doing battle for Rome 
agamst the heretics of his time, and in his controversy with the 
Pop:, Cyprian availed himself of all the consequences involved 
in Natthew xv1.87 For, as S, Augustine argues, he set unity 
above all things else, and therefore he never broke communion 
with the Roman Church. 

S. Jerome gives the same explanation as S. Cyprian. He 
thus vrites against Jovinian: * But you say that the Church is 
“built upon Peter. And although, in another place, it is said 
“to be built upon all the Apostles, and they, too, have received 
“the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the firmness of the 
“Church is established, beginning in one, and then passing on 
“to the rest, yet one of the twelve is elected in order that by 
“the institution of a head every occasion for schism may be 
“taken away.®8 SS. Augustine, on the occasion of the dispute 
at Antioch, says: ‘See, how Cyprian refers to Peter, in whom, 
“as we have also learnt from holy Scripture, by a distinguished 
“ race shines forth the primacy of the apostles (Artmatus apfos- 
“ tolorum.” ) “For who does not know that that primacy of the 
* Apostolate is to be preferred to every episcopal office.” 
67 Harnack, i. 313. Note 2. 

68 Adzers. Jovin. I. 14. Jovinian urged this point of Catholic doctrine in order to 
show that the married man, Peter, was preferred to the virgin, John. Jerome 
of course, admits his premisses and denies the inference, saying that Peter's zg: 


was the reason of his having been preferred to John. ‘‘Aetati delatum est, quis 
Petrus senior erat.” 


69 De Bapt. 1l.1,2 Ambros., J Ps. 43,49. Optat. Mil., De Schism. Donat, 1.2 


458 THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 


The fact that Fathers like S. Ambrose see in Peter an exampie 
of every Christian, does not in the least exclude his Primacy, 
any more than the fact that Christ is in everything our form and 
pattern. | 

25. The juxta-position of Peter and Paul, as the two foun- 
ders of the Roman Church, is as old as Irenzeus. Nor is this 
any objection to the Primacy. On other occasions, too, the 
Fathers are wont to join them together and place them, in th: 
same way as John and James, on an equal rank as colemns of 
the Church.” But a careful examination of text and context 
will convince us that, in those passages, they are not speakng 
of the internal organism of the Church, or of the relation of 
one part to another, but of the Church viewed as a whole as 
an institution, the successor of the synagogue, that takes her 
place in the history of the world. She rests upon the Apottles, 
her first founders, as such. Tiey view her as the house of God 
set up in the midst of a pagan world, and set forth the h story 
of her origin and growth. Is it fair to expect the Fithers 
never to make a statement concerning the Apostles without 
minutely distinguishing their relative positions? Is it not 
sufficient that they call Peter the frst, the chosen Apostle ; the 
head, the mouth, the tongue of the Apostles; the zock, the 
president, the ruler of the Church ; the siepherd, the fisher, the 
teacher of men; the prince and ruler of the world ys the keyLearer 
and dovr-keeper of the kingdom of heaven? Or, again, when 
they say that in him and through him the Church’s unity is 
secured against all heresy and sch'sm? Innocent X. has con- 
aemned several propositions of Arnold of Brescia, in which 
the equality of Peter and Paul is asserted in such a way as to 
deny the supremacy of Peter.7! §, Bernard has expressed the 
difference between Primacy and Apostolate by saying that the 
former was potestas summa, sed non sola. 


qo Aug., Sermo. 55. Ambros., Ps. 77,6. De Sir. I. 158. So also Gregor. Naz, 
Gregor, Nyss., Chrysost , Theodoret, Cyrill. Alex. See Langen, Pp. Or; Lin 85. 


7t A.D. 1674. See Denzinger, Enchir. n. 965. Also Dillinger, Christenth. p. 32. 


THE PRIMACY OF §S. PETER, 459 


26. But did Peter exercise any Primacy during the lifetime 
of the Apostles? In the first part of this chapter we gave a 
sketch of his life up to our Lord’s resurrection, and we there 
argued that everything clearly pointed toa Primacy. It only 
remains now to pursue the story of his life after our Lord’s 
ascension, in order to see whether Peter acted as if he were the 
supreme shepherd of the new flock of Christ. Protestant 
writers, like Hase, boldly assert that there is “ not the slightest 
“trace of any spiritual supremacy of Peter in the history of the 
“ Apostolic Church.” Ali gepends on what he precisely means 
by spiritual supremacy. Of course, it would be absurd to 
expect that Peter lorded it over the Apostles and faithful ; or. 
again, shat his supremacy had the same scope during the life- 
time of the Apostles, as it would have in the churches governed 
only by bishops. We have already explained that each of the 
Apostles had received divine mission and authority from Christ 
(i1.e., universal jurisdiction over all the faithful, exclusive of the 
Apostles themselves), and personal infallibility, together with 
all the grace and virtue required for their Apostolic calling. 
The result of this would be an absolute unity of mind, and 
heart, and purp»se among the Apostles. But with equally 
unerring instinct would they recognise and respect the institu- 
tion of Christ, according to which one of them, who had always 
veen their leader, was new the rock of the Church, the key- 
uearer, the shepherd set ever the lambs and sheep of Christ’s 
flock. The whole question, therefore, resolves itself into this: 
Are there any clear and unmistakable signs and proofs in the 
history of the Apostolic Church, that they regarded Peter as 
their leader, or that he acted in that capacity? Does it appear 
that while no Apostle claimed the right to command his brother 
Apostle, Peter might, if necessary, lay claim to guiding and 
commanding them? Let the New Testament supply the 
answer. 

27. Peter comes to the fore in the election of 2, new Apostle 
in the place of the traitor Judas. He moves and proposes the 


460 THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 


election, he determines the mode of election, and lays down 
the conditions requisite in the person of the elect. (Acts I. 15 
seq ). He comes forward on the day of Pentecost to address 
the multitude gathered together. The people, stirred by his 
words, come to Peter and the Apostles. (Acts. 11. 14. seq. 37). 
Peter heals the paralytic at the gate of the temple (111. 1 seq.) ; 
he speaks to the people (11. 11), and he is the spokesman 
before the council (Iv. 8; v. 29). He passes judgment upon 
Ananias and Saphira (v. 1 seq.). Peter and John, at the 
request of the Apostles, go to Samaria (vim. 14). Peter passes 
judgment upon Simon “Magus, whom the ancients called the 
father of heretics. Peter makes the first visitation of all the 
churches in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria. At Lydda he heals 
Aeneas (IX. 32); at Joppe he raises Tabitha to life. He again, 
by special revelat.on, is sent to receive the first heathen convert, 
Cornelius the centurion (x. 1). He, too, is miraculously de- 
livercd from prison, prayer being made for him by the whole 
Church (xm. 1). At the Apostolic Council he rises first and 
passes sentence upon a question involving a point of 
dogma. “This act, at once the most magnanimous and 
“disinterested on the part of Peter, saved Christianity at a 
‘critical moment,” says Pfleiderer,7! and he thinks that “ for 
“this reason the Church justly held the authority of Peter in 
“high esteem.” Let us- now sum up these incidents and 
express them in more modern speech. Peter received into the 
Church of the Aposiles the first converts, both from Judaism 
and heathenism ; he worked the first miracle; he punished the 
first persons guilty of disrespect and disobedience ; he cast out 
of the Church the first heretic; he made the first Apostolic 
visitation of all the churches; he presided at the first Council 
of the Church, he pronounced the first dogmatic decision, 
Now what more could we reasonably expect, to make it clear 
that Peter was the focus of the whole Apostolic activity? In 
the Acts of the Aposiles, he is so manifestly the central star 


7 Das Urchristenthum, etc. Berlin 1887, p. 47 


WPS Le Bs 


THE PRIMACY OF S, PETER. 461 


round which the others revolve, and towards which they gravi- 
tate He is to all the man of light and leading. What a 
commentary upon the Petrine texts of the Gospels !* 

28. The £pistles of S. Paul also bear witness to the 
Primacy of S. Peter. And they are all the more important, as 
S. Paul was naturally anxious to safeguard his right to be con- 
sidered a true and genuine Apostle, called, like the rest, 
immediately by God, and having received the Gospel direct 
from Christ. Nevertheless S. Paul seems equally anxious to 
set himself right above all with Peter. He not only uses by 
preference the word Ceffhas, but he also tells us that he 
journeyed to Jerusalem to know Peter (Gal. 1. 18). Now the 
context forbids us te think that he undertook the journey 
merely from motives of idle curiosity or politeness. The motive 
was rather the same as that which he himself indicates as 
haying prompted his second journey to Jerusalem (11. 2). He 
went in consequence of a revelation, and in order to be 
recognized as an Apostle especially by those who held foremost 
rank, so that he might not run in vain. It was necessary for 
him to be duly engrafted into the existing organism of the 
Apostolic college, so that all should recognize him as a true 
Avostle of Jesus Christ. For this purpose he went to see 
Peter. It was then agreed that Paul should preach the Gospel 
to the Gen iles, while Peter devoted himself chiefly to the 
Jews. Paul, then, received the divine revelation or deposit, 
and mission from God, ordination in the Church at Antioch 
(Acts x11. 1), and recognition or approbation from Peter. 
Weizsacker,’? a representative of the modern critical school, 


92 Afostol. Zeitalter, p. 12. 


* Protestants generally argue thus: *f Because Peter was foreknown by our Lord todo 
these things, therefore did He (piophetically) call him the rock, the key-bearer, 
the shepherd. The Petrine texts are but the prophecy of an historic and transient 
fact, not of permament office in the organic constitution of the Church. Accord- 
ing to them there is no reason why Peter rather than any one else acted a he did.” 
The evasion is ingenious, but not natural. The argument, if applied tc the other 
Apostles, would lead to the absurd conclusion that they, too, were without office 
and power, and that Christ, when giving them His power and mission and promise 
of assistance, was simply predicting what, as a matter of fact, they would 
after His departure! 7%. 


462 THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 


remarks thus on this subject: “When Paul had gone over to 
“the Christian cause, he first settled everything in his own 
“mind and with Him who called him . . . But having 
“done this, he tried as everyone would naturally have done, to 
‘put himself in touch with the existing Apostolic community. 
““Not indeed with the entire community, because this even on 
“merely external grounds, was impossible, but with Peter, and 
‘this was sufficient. Nothing more was needed. He there- 

fore went to Jerusalem solely for the purpose of seeing and 
*‘knowing Peter; for in Peter he saw the embodiment of all 
“christianity as it then was. The position of Peter had been 
“recognized by the Master (Christ) Himself, who had dis- 
“tinguished him above all the others. It is equally plain that 
*“in the sequel Peter maintained his prominence ; he held his 
“position, not in a false tradition only, but as far as we can see, 
‘“in history itself.” 

29. Even the dispute between Peter and Paul at Antioch 
serves to illustrate the peculiar importance of Peter’s position. 
It was Paul’s fear lest Peter’s example should influence the 
whole Church, that led him to take such energetic measures. 
Some of the Fathers have.tried to solve the difficulty by a dis- 
tinction between Peter and the Prince of the Apostles,?3 or by 
representing the whole dissension as a simulation.74 S. Cyprian 
however prai es S. Peter because he accepted the fraternal cor- 
rection of S. Paul, and did not arrogantly appeal to his Primacy, 
and taunt Paul with having been a,persecutor of the Church, | 
S. Augustine, too, in the passage quoted above, endorses 
Cyprian’s view. In his celebrated epistle to Jerome also, 
wherein he gives his reasons for not accepting the view thatthe 
quarrel was a mere feint, he says that the conduct of Peter and~ 
the example he gave to his successors, was far holier and rarer 
than that of Paul, though both are good. Superiors, he Says, 
should humbly accept correction, and inferiors should not 


73 Clem. Alex., af. Euseb. i. 12. Cf. Hieron., Ep. ad Gal. ii. 1x. 
74 Orig., Hieron. See above, chap. viii. n. 5. 


“THE PRIMACY OF S, PETER. 463 


shrink from the bold task of pointing out the faults of superiors. 
Augustine himself follows the example of Peter, and repeatedly 
asks pardon of Jerome for any offences he had given him. 
“For though the Episcopate is higher than the Presbyterate, 
“yet is Augustine in so many things inferior to Jerome.’ S. 
Thomas refers to this dispute as furnishing an exception in the 
matter of the fraternal correction that an inferior is allowed to 
administer to a prelate. ‘‘ For to resist in the face and before 
“all, exceeds the limits of fraternal correction, and therefore S. 
“Paul would not have blamed S. Peter in that manner, unless 
‘“he had considered himself in some manner as his equal, — 
“namely in so far as the defence of the common faith was con- 
“corned . . . Hence Paul, who was subject to Peter, 
“ publicly corrected him on account of the danger of scandal ~ 
“regarding the faith, and as the glossa of Augustine says: 
‘Peter himself has given his hearers an example, that where ~ 
‘they have deviated from the right path, they should not be ~ 
““eshamed to accept correction from - inferiors.”* Similar’ 
examples may be quoted from ecclesiastical history, e.g., S. 
Bernard and Catherine of Sienna. 

30. Our doctrine is thus defined by the Vatican Council: 
*‘ We therefore teach and declare that according to the testimony 
“of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal 
“Church of God was immediately and directly promised and 
“ siven to blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. For 
‘it was to Simon alone, to whom He had already said: Thou 
‘shalt be called Cephas (Johr 1. 42), that the Lord after the 
“confession made by him, saying: Thou art the Christ, the 
‘¢ Son of the living God, addressed these solemn words: Blessed 
“are thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood have 
“not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 
“ And I say to thee that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I 
“will build my Church,:and the gates of hell shall not prevail 


75 De Baft. ii. 1, 2. Ep. 82. 
* §S. Thom. ii. ii. Q. 33. a. 4 ad 2 


464 THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER. 


“against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom. 
“of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it 
‘shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt 
“loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.* And it 
“was upon Simon alone that Jesus after His resurrection 
“bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all 
‘‘ His fold in the words: Feed my lambs: feed my sheep.t At 
“open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it 
“has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the 
“perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of 
“government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, 
“deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the . 
“other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was 
“endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of juris- 
“diction ; or of those who assert that the same primacy was 
“not bestowed immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter 
“himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on 
‘Peter as her Minister.” 

“If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle 
“was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the 
‘visible Head of the whole Church Militant ; or that the same 
“directly and immediately received from the same Our Lord 
“Jesus Christ a primacy of honour only, and not of true and 
“proper jurisdiction; let him be anathema.” 


* S. Matthew xvi. 16-19 
t S. John xxi. 15-17. 
- $ Concil. Vat. De Accles. Cap. i. (Card. Manning's Transl.) 


CHAPTER: XIII. 


APUG Be J PAREN ERG NE SC OM epi Bal en Shoo tO 8 Eh 


EOPEREETUITLACH RETER’S PRIMACY, 


1.* The Church, founded by Christ, spread and consolidated 
by the Apostles, is, in the words of Irenzeus, the rich vessel 
wherein the Holy Ghost has deposited the treasures of truth 
and grace, in order that all men of all places and times may 
draw from it, as from an unpolluted living source, the waters of 
life. She is the living teacher of truth, and the faithful dispenser 
of grace, the mother of all who are born unto the supernatural 
life of the children of God. Sne ts the visible representative of 
Christ. Her voice is His voice; her hands are His hands; her 
head is His head; and her body His body. Her mission and 
power are His mission and power. She is formed on the pattern 
of the Hypostatic Union. The human and the divine elements 
in her are inseparably united. Consequently her organism in 
which the divine and human are blent in one, can neither change 
nor cease to be. However much her history and life may vaiy 
in their outward manifestations, or grow in their internal fulness, 
she will ever be the same individual body. With this body 
Christ promised to remain for all time. 

But if this be the end and nature of the Church, it clearly 
follows that, whatever forms an essential part of her organism, 
must be as perpetual as the Church herself. Now we have 
shown in the preceding chapter that the Primacy of S Peter is 
an organic element, nay, ¢Ze first and foremost organic element, 
in the constitution of the Church, It must thercfore be as 

R 


466 THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE. 


perpetual as the Church herself. Moreover, the reason why 
Christ made Peter His own Vicar, chief shepherd and head of 
the Church, is not far to seek, It was in order to give unity to 
the Church and to maintain that unity efficiently. U¢ omnes 
unum sint. “ And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” 
But this reason will hold good as long as the Church lasts. 
Nay, it will apply with even greater force to later times, because 
with the material expansion of the Church, the dangers of 
heresy and schism must be proportionably greater. Therefore 
the source and centre of unity can never fail. 
z. Again, the need for the powerful agency of an external 
ceitre would make itself felt in the Christian community in 
proportion as the latter receded from its first origin. That origin 
was so brilliant and striking, because surrounded with such a 
halo of supernatural splendour, that its glory, like a circle in the 
water, was ever enlarging itself, fascinating the eyes of men, 
and mightily attracting them to itself. But later generations 
having no longer the advantage of beholding with their own 
eyes the imposing and majestic figures of the Apostles, or their 
mighty show.ng forth of the Spirit, stood in far greater need of 
other motives of faith, and other means of preserving the unity 
of the Church. Without an external and divinely instituted 
organization it would have been impossible for the Church 
to steer her bark amid the surging floods of a wild sea, or to 
hold her fortress against the batteries and assaults of the gates 
of hell. How could she, we will not say, have triumphed, but 
even have made a show of resistance in the great struggles and 
persecutions of the 2nd and the 3rd centuries, without a firmly 
welded internal organization and absolute consciousness of its 
invincible strength? She must inevitably have been felled to 
the ground, and have succumbed to the deadly blows of her 
intellectual and physical assailants. But what is the chief, the 
main element in that organization? The Primacy. It is this 
that gives it unity and strength. Try as we may, it is labour 
lost to try and conceive the Church as possessing a mission that 


Pea hep See pire 


9 ee ‘oe *%n€ 


™ hb 


ee eee ae ee ae Te 


~~ 


PE tc Eat heidi, tne 2 


THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE, 40] 


compels her to be ever on the aggressive and ever on the 
defensive, and yet as an organization without a strong central 
power, 

3.* Nevertheless, the perpetuity of Peter’s Primacy is not 
based merely upon @ gviorvz reasons. Nor again is it a mere 
inference from Scripture. On the contrary it 1s @vect/y contem- 
plated and affirmed in the Petrine texts in themselves, especially 
when taken conjointly, and also when collated with those texts 
which declare that the Apostolate is to last till time shall be no 
more. If it is true that the Apostles are sent to be witnesses 
to Christ and to teach all nations till the consummation of the 
world, and that the divine Spirit will abide with them for ever 
(see chapter x1), then it is equally true that the first and chief 
of them, who is the rock, the strengthener of the brethren, the 
key-bearer of the kingdom, the shepherd of lambs and sheep, 
will also endure for ever, - Peter’s positiun and office, and the 
existence of the Church, are correlative. As long as the Church 
stands, as long as there is anything whatever to be bound and 
loosed, any brethren to be confirmed, any lambs or sheep to be 
fed, there must be the living rock, the head key-bearer, the 
main support of the weak, the chief shepherd. If he ceases to 
exist, the Church #/s0 facto collapses. Such is the direct, 
obvious, and natural force of the Scripture passages. The words 
were spoken by the Architect and Chief Builder of the Church, 
and they reveal His plan and design. Or,again, they are the words 
of Him who establishes His fold. The words are in themselves 
absolute and unlimited ; the subject matter of which they treat 
is by its very nature ts endure, and it is expressly said to be 
invincible (Matth. xv1). The very institution, then, of the 
Piimacy entails its perpetuity. For this reason it is certainly 
more logical, if not more biblical, to deny the existence of 
Peter’s Primacy altogether than to admit its existence and 
to deny its perpetuity. 

4.{ There is, moreover, another argument for the necessary 
continuity of the Primacy, which may be conveniently stated 


468 THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE. 


here, with all the more reason as it is seldom distinctly for- 
mulated or insisted on. While not wishing to exaggerate 
its force, we will say that it seems to us to nip in the bud 
the favourite Anglican theory on the constitution of the 
early Church. We submit, then, that the Apostolate itself 
is perpetual only in virtue of the Primacy ; that, without 
the Primacy, there is no Apostolic succession, and no Apos- 
tolicity in the Church. This contention is entirely based 
on @ postertort grounds. The special prerogatives of the 
Apostles, as is generally admitted, were three, namely, (1) 
universal jurisdiction, (2) individual infallibility, (3) direct di- 
wine mission. Now, it is quite clear from the history of the 
New Testament, especially the Acts and the Pauline Epis- 
tles, that none of these prerogatives passed on to the bish- 
ops whom the Apostles appointed in their place as rulers 
of the Church. Their jurisdiction was particular, not uni- 
versal. It was limited to a definite town, or country, or 
province. Titus was bishop of Crete, Timothy of Ephe- 
sus, and so forth. Bishops, as we learn from the Acts and 
the Ignatian epistles, were constituted ‘ per singulas Civi- 
tates.’ It is equally clear, and equally generally admitted, 
that they were not individually infallible, and that they 
had their mission, not directly from God, but from the 
Apostles. Their mission was essentially ‘ missio apostolica,’ 
as distinguished from ‘ missio divina.’ They depended on 
the Apostles both for the power of order and jurisdiction. 
Their election, consecration, and institution was the work 
of an Apostle. Their jurisdiction was not only limited in 
character, but was essentially dependent on the Apostles. 
Any one of the Apostles could at any time revoke it, if there 
were reason or Cause for so doing. The bishops, then, were 
Apostolic men (viri apostolici), not Apostles. And they 
were Apostolic men in as much as they had mission directly 
from an Apostle, and held jurisdiction, which was limited 
to their own See, and dependent on each and all the Apos: 
tles. We are not denying that these bishops could conse- 
crate new bishops and found new Sees, but, technically 


a 


a6, 


THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE. 469 


speaking, they could do this, not in virtue of their juris- 
diction, which was limited to their own See, but only 
by special Apostolic power. Thus the new _ bishops 
became Apostolic men in their turn, and certainly held 
jurisdiction dependent on, and revocable by the Apostles 
as long as the latter were living ; for these held juris- 
diction universal, that.is, over every church, no matter by 
whom it had been founded. Now let us suppose that all 
the Apostles die, and none remains. That a radical 
change must now come over the whole constitution of the 
Church will be seen at a glance. For no one now pos- 
sesses universal jurisdiction, or individual infallibility, or 
direct divine mission ; nay mote, there is no one to create 
new Sees, or impart true and real Apostolic mission ; no 
one who has jurisdiction in all the churches, and, stranger 
still, the jurisdiction of each bishop, hitherto essentially 
dependent and revocable, has now become independent 
and irrevocable. Such are the necessary and inevitable 
consequences, on the supposition that all the Apostles have 
died, and that the Apostolate with its three prerogatives 
has died with them. But, it will be urged, might not indi- 
vidual bishops be dependent on, and subject to, the juris- 
diction and judgment of anumber or majority assembled in 
synod? Certainly not, if each bishop be independent in 
his own See, and limited to that See. No number of par- 
ticular jurisdictions will ever make one universal jurisdic- 
tion. Yet such universal jurisdiction must be at the back 
of each synod, unless it be usurping a power not its own by 
nature. The one conclusion, therefore, that forces itself 
upon a thinking mind, is that all the Apostles cannot have 
died ; that one, at least, must live on, and if so, that he is 
naturally the head of the Church. On the other hand, if 
Christ has from the beginning instituted a head of the 
Church, that head will naturally be an everlasting Apostle in 
the Church. Thus the Apostolate lives in the Primacy, and it 
is the Primacy that makes the Church and the succession of 
bishops truly Apostolic. To abolish the Primacy is to abolish 
the Apostolate, and the abolition of the Apostolate means 


470° THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE. 


disruption and disorganisation, and the inevitable dissolution of 
the Church. If, then, the Church is to be everlasting and 
Apostolic, the Primacy must be perpetual. 

5. That this trath is written on the first page of the 
Church’s story, has been shown repeatedly ia the preceding 
chapters, and the demonstration will grow as it proceeds, All 
the Fathers are agreed on this point,t-that Peter is ever living 
in the Church. He ever presides in his See, ever occupies the 
one chair of truth, and gives the true faith to all who seek it. 
With the Church wherein he presides, all other Churches must 
be in harmony. The Church is ene because it is built upon 
one foundation, Peter. The Episcopate is one, because bishops 
participate in the Apostolic power, that exists first in one. 
“The strength of the foundation is not shaken by the immense 
“weight of the temple that is reared upon it, because the firm- 
“ness of faith that was praised in the prince of the Apostles, is 
“everlasting ; and as that which Peter confessed of Christ, will 
“ever remain, so also will that remain which Christ instituted 
“in Peter.”? “Where Peter is,” says S. Ambrose, “there is 
“the Church.” ‘Can any one,” says S. Cyprian, ‘who 
“abandons the chair of Peter, hope to be in the Church ” ? 


fl. THE ROMAN SUCCESSION. 7 

6. Who, then, are the successors of Peter? The decision 
rests with history alone, and its verdict is spoken in clear and 
unfaltering accents. It unmistakably asserts that it has ever 
been a fixed belief that Peter continued to live and to preside 
in the See of ume, and nowhere else; that the Lishops of 
Rome and none other were Peter’s successors; that they succeed 
by divine right, because Christ instituted the Primacy as a 
permanency. It was His divine will that there should be suc- 
cessors to Peter. They also succeed by an Apostolic right, 
inasmuch as it rested with Peter to determine the manner of 
succession, It was left to Peter to decide that the Bishop of 


zx Leo M., Sermo ii. 2. Cf iv. 2; Ep. x. 2,9; alv. 3. Chrysol, Ep. Leos, 95. 
Mansi, Concil. iv. 1290. Hefele, ii. 200, 


THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE, 471 


Rome rather than of any other city, should be his successor, 
and no doubt he had special reasons for giving the preference 
to Rome. He made known his will by himself assuming tle 
Roman Episcopate, and holding it until his death. This fact 
of his Roman Episcopate firraly fixed the form of succession. 
The Bishop of Rome, when legitimately elected, is the suc- 
cessor of Peter in the Primacy and in the Apostolate. Hence 
the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, that is of the Pope, is the 
complex result of truth and fact. It supposes the revealed 
truth of the perpetuity of the Primacy, and the twofold historical 
fact that Peter was Bishop of Rome and that he made the 
Roman Episcopate the sole title of succession. The question 
whether Peter was ever in Rome, though not necessarily 
‘identical with the fact of his Reman Episcopate, is practically 
bound up very closely therewith. 

47. Excepting tle first twelve chapters of the Acts of the 
Apostles, the New Testament writings give very scanty infor- 
mation about the life and journeys of Peter. In chapter x. 17 
it is said, in a somewhat mysterious manner, that “he went to 
“another place.” This must have been sometime about 44 
A.D. After that he is once more mentioned as assisting at 
the Council of Jerusalem. Many Catholic interpreters and 
historians have suspected this “other place” to be Rome, 
being of opinion that any oter place would have been 
mentioned by name.” The immediate purpose of the narrative 
is to show that Peter intended to seek a place of safety from 
the persecution tLat was raging in Jerusalem. Tiis he might 
have secured by going to Antioch, where he also stayed for a 
while after the Council of Jerusalem. But was there any reason 
for not mentioning Antioch as the term of his journey? None 
whatever, unless it be the general reason that Luke is silent as 
to all S. Peter’s transactions in the Church at Antioch. But as 
Luke wrote the Acts in Rome about the year 63 or 64, if Rome 
2 See Aberle-Schanz, Finleitung, p. 55. Hagemann, Adm. Kirche, p. 661. 


Hettinger, Fundamentaltheologie 2 ed. 1888, p. 612. Hundhausen, Das Erste 
Pontificalschreiben etc., Mainz 1373, p. 15 Dollinger, Ch7visienthum, p. 95- 


472 THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE, 


was the term of Peter’s journey, it is easier to understand why 
Luke would not mention it by name, especially if both Peter 
and Paul were then present in the city. 

Romans were present in Jerusalem at the first Pentecost 
(Acts 11. 10). Since, tov, there was a large contingent of Jews 
in Rome, there must have been frequent and active intercourse 
between the two cities, both in politics and in religion. Hence 
it is not improbable that Peter, with his shrewd practical sense, 
had, early in his career, fixed his gaze on the imperial city and 
seized the first opportunity to repair thither His sojourn was 
not continuous, since we again find him later on in Jerusalem 
and at Antioch, and perhaps also in Corinth. The Jews were 
expelled from Rome probably in the year so, and the Jewish 
Christians (Acts xvi. 2) were included under the same ban. 
Nevertheless the Christian community in Rome must very soon 
afterwards have revived, and even flourished; for S. Paul writes, 
abou: the year 58, that their ‘faith was spoken of in the whole 
“world” (Rom..1. 8). ‘For your obedience is published in 
“every place” (xyvI. 19). This testimony, moreover, gives us a 
clue to the founding of the Roman Church. For it is scarcely 
conceivable that the Roman community would have acquired 
such internal strength and celebrity, had it not, like all the 
Other greater Churches of the time, been founded and ruled 
by an Apostle. From the latter part of his Epistle we learn 
that be had bad “a great desire, these many years past, to come” 
to them (xv. 23), of whom he was assured that they were full of 
love, replenished with all knowledge and able to admonish one 
anuther (xvi. 14), but that he has been kept away till now 
when be had resulved to take his journey into Spain (XVI. 24). 
In verse 20, moreover, he says: And I have so preached this 
‘Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon 
“another man’s foundation.” All this seems to imply that the 
_ Roman community was founded by an Apostle indeed, but not 
by Paul. Doilinger says: “That the Roman Church arose 
“without a fouader, or that it was founded by Aquila or 


ies 


THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE, 473 


Priscilla, or mediately by Paul, are quite untenable opinions.”3 
The fact that Paul does not mertion the name of the founder 
need not cause surprise, as the addressees of the letter were 


_ well acquainted with it. From I Cor. 1. 12 we gather that the 


name of Cephas was not unknown in the West. As the parties 
that had arisen in the Corinthian Church, were due to the 
personal presence of Paul and Apoilo, so it is probable that the 
party of Cepkas had arisen in like manner, Anyiow Clement 
of Rome has drawn this inference.* 

8. But when we come to the first Epistle of Peter, we begin 
to tread surer ground. It was written in Badylon which, accord- 
ing to the unanimous opinion of the ancients, following the 
precedent set by the Apocalypse, means Rome.’ That it refers 
to the Babylon on the Euphrates, is an opinion of much later 
introduction,® which found advocates in Erasmus and many 
Protestant commentators.7 It is, however, clearly refuted by 
the fact that the great city on the Euphrates was, at the time 
of Strabo and when Christ was born, a mere waste and desert.? 
In consequence of the antagonism that was rife between the 
Babylonians and the Jews, the latter had left the country 
before S. Peter’s first Epistle was written. The Egyptian 
Babylon near Cairo is quite out of the question, being utterly 
unsupported by tradition. The symbolical designation of the 
imperial city, though it may be surprising, is not inexplicable. 
The relation in which this epistle stands to Romans, may 
furnish a clue to the date of its composition, The similarity 
between the two is undeniable, and can only be explained on 
the supposition that one served as the pattern of the other. 
The probability is that the Epistle to the Romans is earlier. 


3 ZL. p. 98. 

4 I Cor. 47. See Dillinger, p. 3133 

§ Euseb., //. £. ii. 15, 2 Schoetrgen, Hor. Hebr. p. roro. Rosenthal, AZol rye 
phen, p. 4t. 57. 73. Aberle, p. 257. Seufert, Zeitsckr. fir wissensch. Lheol, 
1835. p. 154. Hundhausen, ¢. ¢. p. 85. 

6 Cosmas Ind., Topfozr. Christ. 1i. (Migne T. 83. p. 114 D). 

Lipsws, dpok yphe A postelgesch. i. 27. 6105 ii. 145. Hug, E w’ezt. ii. 474 

8 Strabo, xvi. 738. Plin. Avst. Nat. vi. 24. Joseph., Antig. XVili. Qo 


a) 


474 THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE. 


It falls between the years 50-64, but everything points to 64 as 
a@ more approximate date than 50. Again the notice in S. 
John’s Gospel deserves some attention. It tells of the 
inartyrdom of S. Peter and the manner in which he met his 
death. The place, indeed, is not named, simply because the 
faithful, for whom the Gospel was intended, would know that 
Peter had been crucified, and would consequently know the 
place. But we have very early, if not eontemporary evidence, 
that he was crucified at Rome. No other place can advance 
even the most shadowy claim. Scripture furnishes no direct 
evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. But from what we 
have said, there are not wanting indications which, taken in 
conjunction with tradition, are sufficient to create certainty on 
the point. It is, therefore, simply an exaggeration, when 
Protestant writers, like Hase,® assert that there is no trace 
whatever in scripture of Peter’s Roman sojourn; but to 
assert further that neither is there a vestige of the Roman 
Primacy to be found in the sacred books, is to cap an exag- 
geration with a fabrication. Tor if there is anything written 
in luminous characters in the gospels and other writings of 
the New Testament, it is the two truths implied in the Papal 
supremacy, viz., the perpetuity cf the Apostolate and of Peter’s 
Primacy. 

9. That Peter came to Rome, is attested by the unanimous 
voice of Tradition, which derives confirmation from the fact 
that no city but Rome has ever claimed to possess the tomb of 
the Prince of the Apostles. It is just possible that Peter might 
have disappeared from the scene without leaving a trace behind 
him. But, considering the position he holds in the Gospel, the 
possibility will never grow into a probability. The Apocryphal 
writings reveal the fabricators of legends busy at work; but 
howsoever busy, they never dared to tamper with the historical 
fact of Peter’s death. Even the comparatively late and heretical 
legend on Peter-Simon, though very different from the old 


9 P. 127. 


ae ee eer 


rev tes 


PR Ret RAO iN Da tc ta ts i Sop sae ah, 


at ee 


Pe ee 


THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE. 475 


historical tradition, has not gone so far as to deny the Roman 
sojourn, The earliest notices are found in Clement of Rome, 
Ignatius and Papias. C/ement¢ in his Epistle to the Corinthians, 
written about 96 a.D., reminds his readers, that Peter and Paul 
suffered martyrdom together, and he classes them with the other 
victims of the Roman persecution (‘among us’), Zenadius, in 
the beginning of the second century, while on his way to Rome 
to be martyred, writes to the Romans saying that he does not 
wish to command them as Peter and Paul had done.’ This 
implies that Peter had been in Rome; for no written communi- 
cation of his to the Romans has come down to us. Pafias 
mere'y mentions that the second Gospel was written by Mark 
from the discourses delivered by Peter, but he does not name 
the place where it was written. Now Mark, as we know from 
Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius, wrote his Gospel in 
Rome. But the testimony of Clement is substantially the same 
as that of Papias, and Eusebius expressly refers to him. ‘I here- 
fore, we may conclude that Papias was of their opinion as 
regards the place where the second Gospel was composed. As 
to the date of its composition the opinions leave a wide margin 
between the years 42-67. Eusebius advocates an earlier, Irenzeus 
a later date. 

10. Dionysius of Corinth, about the year 170, writes to the 
Romans, that Peter and P.ul planted the Church in Corinth as 
well as in Rome, and suffered martyrdom together in the latter 
city.!! Jreneus’ testimony, however, is much more important, 
because he had learnt, from his master Polycarp, the Asiatic 
tradition of S. John. He says that ‘the greatest and oldest 
“church in Rome, which was known to all, had been founded 
“and organized by the most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul.” 
Tertullian says that these two Apostles sealed the Gospel 


to 1 Cor. v. 6. Ignat., Ad Rom. iv. 3. Papias. af. Euseb., H. £. iii. 39 (40 17). 
Ciem. Alex.. ii. 15. cf. vi. 14, 5- Lipsius, AZokr. Apostelgeschichte, ii. 1, 18, 
Schanz, 7#z Marc. p. 11. 

ux Euseb. ii. 15. Iren, iii. 3, 2; 1,3. Tertull. Adv Mare. iv. 5. De Pracescr. c. 32. 36. 
Scorp. C. 13. 


476 THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE, 


preached to the Romans with their blood. His later Mon- 
tanistic interpretation of the Petrine text in Matthew xv1. 
only proves that, according to the Catholic tradition of the 
time, Peter was believed to have been in Rome and to have 
bequeathed his power to the bishop of Rome.” The Ro- 
man presbyter Cajus, about 200 A.D., writes that in his 
time the trophies of the two founders of the Roman Church, 
Peter and Paul, were shown on the Vatican hill and on the 
road to Ostia.* Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian, Commo- 
dian, Lactantius, Peter of Alexandria, and others, write to 
the same effect. We therefore conclude in the words of 
Dodliinger :* “‘ That Peter has laboured in Rome, is a fact 
‘so well attested, and so deeply interwoven with ancient 
“history, that those who reject it as a fiction, are bound, 
‘“in consequence, to relegate the entire ancient history of 
‘the Church to the realm of fable, or at least to envelop it 
‘“ wholly in the mists of uncertainty.’’ 

11. The historical spirit of the age has done much tow- 
ards changing the views of Protestants in matters affecting 
the Catholic Church. This is a case in point. The denial 
of Peter’s sojourn in Rome was at one time the staple dog- 
ma of Protestant writers. The dogmatic and polemical 
interest demanded it, as Lipsius candidly confesses in 
the following words: ‘‘If ever the Prince of the Apostles 
“set foot in the eternal city, he certainly did not goasa 
““simple traveller, but in virtue of his Apostolic Power ; 
‘‘and his martyrdom, in that case, forms but the glori- 
“ous ending of his official labour among the Romans. 
** And if, as many Protestants also hold, the episcopate is of 
** divine institution, then the claim of the Roman Church 


‘“to trace her episcopal succession back to Peter, is after — 


‘‘all not so very absurd.’’* Protestant historians, with 
rare exceptions,” now generally admit Peter’s sojourn in 


12 De Pud.c. 2t. 

13 Euseb. ii, 28. 

TAU bers. 

15 Lipsius, Zettschri/t fir Protest. Theol. 1876, p. 562. 

16 Hase, p. 124, 131. Wichelhaus, Azad. Vorles. 1875, 1. 88. 


a ee 


a ee ee ee ee 


THE- PRIMACY OF THE POPE. - 477 


Rome. They even go so far as to warn their own support- 
ers against weakening the Protestant cause by advocating 
such untenable opinions.” We may be allowed to quote 
Lipsius once more. Speaking of Irenzeus, who, in order to 
prove the Catholic doctrine against heretics, appeals to the 
uninterrupted succession of Roman Bishops, he says : 
‘The interest that Irenzus takes in the Roman tradition, 
‘“is due not so much to the personal fate of Peter as to the 
‘“ fact that he and S. Paul were the founders of the Roman 
“Church. The source from which he drew, was the off- 
** cial Roman tradition, such as it had established itself at 
“the time of Eleutherius (174-189). Above all he found a 
“catalogue of the Roman bishops reaching as far back as 
‘Linus who had been instituted by Peter and Paul. This 
“was probably the same list, previously found by Hege- 
‘“sippus when he came to Rome, under Pope Anicetus 
“* (154-166 or 155-167), which he completed down to Eleu- 
‘ therius, second successor of Anicetus (Euseb. iv. rr, 12). 
“It may therefore be considered certain that as early as the 
“year 160 the Roman Church traced her origin back to the 
“two Apostles.’’* 

12. «As regards the duration of Peter’s Roman sojourn, 
there is likewise a tradition dating back to Eusebius and 
Jerome that Peter stayed, though not continuously, 25 
years in Rome, namely from 42-67." The year 42, 
however, although in harmony with the most ancient tra- 
dition, is rendered difficult by Acts xm. 1 seq.; for, 
Peter’s imprisonment, more probably, falls in the year 
44, and a Roman journey before that date is not very 


likely. The question has no importance for our present 


subject, except in so far as it enables us to draw at least 
this inference, that Peter was closely connected with the 


17. Harnack, Patr. Ap: I Clem. 7. 5. Hilgenfeld, Zeztschr. fur wiss. Theol. 1878, 
p. 508. Severlen, Lutstehung etc der ersten Christengen. in Rom. ‘iibingen, 
1874. Weizsdcker, AZost. Zect. p. 484. 

18 Lipsius ii. 1, 16. 

19 Euseb., Chron. ad ann. 2 Claud. Hieron., De Vir. fl. c.1. Oros., Hist. vii. 6. 
Lact., De fort. Pers. c..2. 


479 THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE. 


foundation of the Roman Church,” that he made there a more 
or less protracted stay, and that he died there during the 
Neronian persecution which raged from 64-67. The year 67 
is the date of his death as given by Eusebius,*! and it has the 
greatest probability on its side. 

13. Here we can only very briefly allude to the special 
Papal catalogues to which the Fathers appeal in proof of the 
Apostolic Succession of the Roman Church, the only one 
among the Apostolic Churches that has survived and braved 
every storm. Linus is named as the frst bishop of Rome after 
Peter and Paul. “The blessed Apostles (Peter and Paul) 
“founded this Church and committed the Episcopal office to 
“Linus. He was succeeded by Anacletus, after whom, in the 
“third place from the Apostles, Clement obtained the See.” 
Eusebius names Linus as the first ; the Apostolic Constitutions 
locate Linus and Clement between Paul and Peter, but 
their testimony is more recent and cannot prevail against the 
older witnesses. Rufinus writes thus: ‘ Linus and Anacletus 
“were bishops in the city or Rome before Clement, but while 
“Peter was still alive; so that they exercised the Episcopal 
‘office and he the duties of the Apostolate.” There is no 
absolute inconvenience in this hypothesis. The two bishops 
may have been Peter’s coadjutors during his life time, so that 
after his death, first one of them succeeded, the other remaining 
his ceadjutor, and then succeeding in his turn. The example 
of Peter and Paul served as a precedent. ‘The Synod of Arles, 
A.D. 314, Calls the Roman Church the chair of the two 
Apostles.” 

Rome, then, the mistress of the world was chosen by Peter 
as the city in which he set his chair (cathedra), and with 
that chair the Apostolate and the Primacy thenceforth re- 


zo Hageman, p. 631% 
ax Ejuseb., 2 ¢ 


22 Iren. ili. 3, 3. Euseb. iii. 2. Comstit. Apost. vii. 46. Rufin., Prack in Clem. 
Recogn. 


23 £f.7.ad Sylv. Déllinger, p. 318. Hefele, i. acg. See Epiphan. xxvii. 6. 


a 
; 
: 


THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE, 479 


mained inseparably united... The Roman bishop himself is 
Peter, the head of the Church universal, the Apostle ever living 
in his Church. Way was Rome chosen rather than any other 
town? The reason could not but be most providential. Foe 
one thousand years Jerusalem had been the centre of revealed 
religion, and the dwelling place of the true God. But the holy 
city with its unbelieving people was rejected, and its doom 
foretold. In view of all this it was necessary to elect another 
city as centre of the new Israel, of the new great Christian 
commonwealth. And providence had already been preparing 
the way. The capital of the universal monarchy was chosen by 
the humble fisherman to be the mistress of the new world, the 
kingdom of Christ. Who can look back upon the history of 
the first three centuries without exclaiming: Evidently the 
finger of God is here. ‘‘The stone which the builders 
“rejected, the same is become the head of the corner. This 
“is the Lord’s doing: and it is wonderful in our eyes” (Ps. 


VT 7o82'2 2-23), 


Wil, EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE AND DEVELOPMENT 
OF PAPAL PRIMACY. 


14.* Can it be proved that Rome claimed and exercised 
Supremacy in the early Church? Before answering this ques- 
tion, it is necessary briefly to recall the argument of the first 
chapter of this volume. The law of development, it was there 
stated, applies to the deposit of revealed truth, to the faith and 
life, and all the institutions of the Church, and to herself as a 
whole. Consequently it must also hold good in the matter of 
the Primacy of the Reman Church, It is not in the natural 
course of things that the powers latent in the human soul 
should stand revealed in their fulness at the outset. Mental 
power, strengin of will, and force of character, in a word, all the 
acts of the reasonable soul, are the outcome of slow and steady 
growth. And the growth and expansion come from within. 
In like manner the Church was at first a young, tender, and 
delicate organism, the author of which was Jesus Christ, who 


480 THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE. 


had both formed its body, and breathed into it His own life- 
giving Spirit. The Church was, therefore, a living being, and, 
as such, capable of growth and expansion from within. Its 
head, too, was a living head, and capable of ruling and govern- 
ing the whole body as time and circumstances might demand. 
Consequently there was no necessity whatever for Christ to 
minutely determine by word of mouth every detail of the 
competency, power, and attributes of the head of the Church, 
But if this be so, we cannot expect the proof for Rome’s Primaey 
to stand out with as much clearness in the first as in the tenth 
century; this would be to disregard all laws of historical develop- 
ment; it would, in fact, be monstrously unreasonable and at 
variance with every known analogy. ‘To say that the Nicaean 
Fathers invented the belief in the consubstantiality of Christ, 
or that the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon invented 
belief in the unity of His person, would be less absurd than to 
say that Leo, or Gregory, or any other Pope, invented the 
Primacy of the Roman Church. The real question at issue 
can only be: Is the Primacy of the Roman Church a natural 
development of the Church that was in the time of Christ and 
the Apostles? Or again, to put the question in another way : 
Are there any traces, however faint, which go to show that 
Rome claimed some superiority and a leading part in the early 
Church? To this question there can be but one answer. 
15. The first and oldest testimony to the superior position 
of the Roman bishop comes to us from the Epistle of C/ement 
to the Corinthians.24 The fact itself of Clement being appealed 
to, while John, the Apostle, was still alive, coupled with the 
fact that he undertook the task of recalling the Corinthians 
to a sense of duty, as well as the whole tone of this Epistle, 
cannot be satisfactorily explained except on the assumption 
that the Roman bishop claimed some sort of a superiority 
over other bishops.* Zezatius, bishop of Antioch and Martyr, 


24 Epist. ad Cor. c. 56-65. See Hefele, Theol. Cuart. 1845. Pp. 191-6 
* A portion of the letter, hitherto missing in the Codex Alexandrinus, has been 


restered from a new MS. found in the year 1875. The passage restored runs thus, 


ee ee ea ee 


” Pe oe Se a ae a Oe ee 


THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE, 481 


not only praises the Roman Church for her great excellence in 
virtue and doctrine, but he styles her, in his address, as the 
‘president of the brotherhood’ (zpoxa@npuéevyn ris aydnns). That 
our translation of the ignatian phrase is the correct one, appears 
from other passages in the Saint’s letters.25 Christ has estab- 
lished a great covenant of love, a great brotherhood, founded 
upon Peter, and Rome is the president thereof. Ignatius uses 
the same term of bishops who preside.in the place of God 
in each Church. It is exactly the caput ecclesiae, 
16. But the testimonies of Clement and Ignat'us, important 
and relatively clear as they are, gain in streneth as we come 
nearer the second and beginning of the third century. Jreneus 
is absolutely decisive on the point of the Roman Primacy. He 
not only states that the Roman Succession is clearer and more 
carefully guarded than any other, and is sufficient for all purposes 
as a proof of orthodoxy, but he states, in set terms, that the 
Church of Rome is the head and mistress of all the Churches 
in the world, and the infallible rule of faith. “4d hance enim 
“ecclestam propter potiorem principalita tem necesse est omnem 
“convenire ecclesiam.” “With this Church, on account ef her 
“ higher rank and power, every other Church must agree, that is, 
“all the faithful whoever they are must agree with her, because 
“fin her the Apostolic Tradition’ is ever preserved.’26 This is 
the modern Catholic doctrine of the Pope, though not in modern 
speech. The Roman Church is the unerring guardian of Apos- 
in Professor Salmon’s translation: ‘‘If any disobey tke words spoken by God 
‘through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in transgression 
**and no small danger, but we shall be clear from this sin . You wiil cause 
*fus joy and exultation, if obeying the things written by us through the Holy 
** Spirit, you cut out the lawless passion of your jealousy according to the inter- 
**cession for peace and concord in this letter. But we have sent faithful and 
‘discreet men, who have walked, from youth to old age, unblamably amongst us, 
**who shall be witnesses between us and you. This have we done that you may 
‘know, that all our care has been and is that you may speedily be at peace.” 
Dr. Salmon remarks thus upon the passage: ‘‘ Very noticeable in the new part of 
‘the letter is the tone of authority used by the Roman Church in making an 
*‘unsolicited (%) interference with the affairs of another Church.” [A/, Allnatt, 
Cath. Petr. p. 91, and taken from Dictionary of Christ. Biogr. and Liter. vol. is 
PasScleme re 

25 rail. xii.1. Rom. ix. 3. Phil. xi.2. Smyrn. xii. te Mariyr. lgnat.v. d 

26 Iren. iii. 3, 2. 


482 THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE, 


tolic Tradition, because of her Primacy, that is, because Rome 
is the See of an ever-living Apostle, who was the head of the 
Church from the beginning. Every attempt to whittle down 
the natural and obvious force of his words by stickling at the 
word convenire or principalitas*? must appear to a serious mind 
to be trifling with the subject. The passage flows like a torrent 
in its majestic grandeur; and these critics would have us divert 
our attention to a few mere bubbles floating on the surface. 
Irenzeus, therefore, furnishes a commentary on the action of 
Clement, and the words of Ignatius. 

17- The first, however, who not only bears testimony to the 
Roman Primacy, but views it, as it were, scientifically, that is, in 
its organic connection with the unity of the Church, is S. Cyprian. 
The Roman chair, according to him, is the chair of Peter, and 
the principal chair; it is both the symbol and the principle of 
unity among the presbyters and in the whole Church.3 On 
Cornelius’ election to the Roman bishopric he writes: “‘ Corne- 
“‘lius has been made bishop of Rome, as the place of Fabian, 
“that is, the place of Peter, and the degree of the sacerdotal 
‘chair (the highest degree) was vacant.”29 Whoever communi- 
cates with him communicates with the Catholic Church. Upon 
the doubtful portions of the passage, and whether they affect 
our argument, as well as upon his and Firmilian’s opposition to 
Pope Stephen, we have remarked in a previous chapter.30 
Cyprian never loses sight of this fundamental factor in the 
constitution of the Church. In commenting upon the passage 
in John xXx. 21-23, he premises: “*To Peter, upon whom 
‘Christ built His Church, and from whom He instituted and 
“showed forth the origin of unity in the Church, He first gave 
‘the power.” 81 

18. S. Ambrose, in-the 4th century, is equally explicit on 
27. See Iren. iv, 38, 3. 

28 Lpist. 59,143 43,53 55, 8 
29 Hist. 52. Cf. Pacian. Ef, 3. See Risler, Prudentius, p. 312° 


30 Chap. xi. p. 377-383. 
31 Epist. 75. 


| 
3 
? 
; 
a 
; 


THE PRIMACY OF THR POFR, 483 


the Roman Primacy, and the place it holds in the Organism of 
the Church. His dictum, “di Petrus, ibi Ecclesia,” clearly 
refers to the Bishop of Rome.®2 He warns the emperors 
against the designs of Ursinus, and entreats them not to allow 
the head of the whole Roman world, i.e., the Roman Church, 
and the holy faith of the Apostles, to be disturbed ; for it is the 
source whence all the members of the venerable community 
derive their rights.*8 Moreover, he bears witness to the fact 
that the Roman Church, according to the ancient Tradition of 
both East and West, was considered the judge of controversies, 
“Even if the proposed Council had not taken place, they ought 
“to have had recourse to the judgment of the Roman Church, 
“and of Italy and the whole of the West, according to the 
“ancient right and custom of their forefathers, and after the 
“example of Athanasius of blessed memory, and Peter of 
“ Alexandria, and most Orientals.” 

19. SS. Jerome's conviction on this subject was as deep as 
his devotion to the Roman chair of Peter was ardent. The 
language of his letters to Pope Damasus is, indeed, at times so 
exuberant, that our opponents see reason to suspect his sin- 
cerity. But, on the one hand, to lavish unstinted praise upon 
his bold and free judgment of the hierarchy, and, on the other, 
to suspect mean flattery, is measuring the same man by two 
different standards. It is certain, says Zockler,*4 that Jerom:’s 
devotion to the authority of the Roman See was the result, not 
of cringing flattery, but of genuine conviction. Jerome himself 
says: “ Be it far from me merely to desire to please the Apos- 
“tolic See of Rome; I am only speaking with the successor of 
“the fisherman, with the disciple of the cross.” “ While follow- 
“ing (and acknowledging) no one as first but Christ, I join 

_“ myself to your holiness, ie., to the chair of Peter; I know 
“that upon this rock the Church is built. Whosoever eats the 


32 Ps. 40,30. See Katholik 1888. I. p. 133s 
33 Lpist. x1,-45 
34 Zockitr, Hieronymus, p. 73 


484 THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE. 


‘“lamb outside this house, will perish in the flood. Who- 
‘“soever gathers not with thee, scattereth, i.e., whosoever . 
‘does not belong to Christ, is of Anti-Christ.’’ Were 
Rome even to make a new faith after that of Nicaea, he 
would follow Rome.*® We can understand this kind of 
language when we try to realize his feelings of grief at the 
sight of all the havoc and devastation that heresy and 
schism had wrought upon the church of the East. The 
glorious inheritance of the faith had been squandered in 
the various churches by bad bishops. The only remedy 
lay with that Church whose faith S. Paul had praised above 
all others,—the Church of Rome and the chair of Peter. 
““ You are the light of the world, the salt of the earth, the 
‘‘ golden and silver vessels.’’ And in the Meletian Schism, 
and in his controversy about Origen,* his conduct was in 
harmony with this his supreme conviction. 

20. As to S. Augustine, his testimonies to the Primacy 
of Rome are so numerous that it is difficult to make a selec- 
tion. The Roman chair on which Anastasius sits to-day,” 
is the chair of Peter. Next in rank is the See of James in 
Jerusalem. And Augustine tells the Bishop of Carthage, 
that he has nothing to fear from the revolutionary mob of 
conspirators, provided he be certain that he is in close 
union with the Roman Church, where the primacy of the 
Apostolic Church has ever flourished. In the Donatist 
and Pelagian controversies the Church of Africa appealed 
to the judgment of the Roman, that is, of the Apostolic 
Chair, and rested by its decision. To contradict Rome, 
was tooppose the chair of Peter. When Rome has spoken, 
the matter is ended.” 

21. The same universal and catholic conviction of the 
Roman Primacy likewise found expression in Councils. 
Philip, the papal legate, thanks the Fathers assembled at 


35 fist. 15 (57) 2. Ep. 16. 

BOmrCatsert, L. ke 

“a7, Collseter, Pett. Ww. ST, 118. 

38 Ep. 43. 3,7: 

39 Hf. 186, 2; 191,2, See Reuter, August. Stud. p. 302. Optat. Milco. ii. & 


s% 


oF 


THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE. 485 


Lphesus for that ‘‘ the holy members (of thé body) have ad- 
“ hered to their head, we// knowing that Peter is the head of 
“ the whole faith and of all the Apostles.’’ ‘‘ We cannot,”’ 
says S. Peter Chrysologus, ‘‘ decide in matters of faith 
“without the consent of the Roman bishop.’’ And the 
bishops at Arles write to Leo, that the most hcly Church of 
Rome, through the most blessed Peter, Prince of the Apos- 
tles, holds the Primacy over all the churches.” 

22. In the East, too, the Roman Church was recognised 
as having the Primacy in the Church Universal. Besides 
the words of Ignatius quoted above we have the example of 
Polycarp repairing to Rome, to settle the dispute arising 
from the Paschal controversy. Smyrna, be it noted, re- 
paired to Rome, not Rometo Smyrna. Abercius of Hierap- 
olis did the same. It is indeed true that Polycrates,*' the 
representative of the Asiatic bishops, would not submit to 
Pope Victor,* nevertheless the Roman view proved to be 
right, and ultimately found universal acceptance. In sub- 
sequent times it became the custom to refer all causae ma- 
jores to the Apostolic See. S. Athanasius relates that one 
of his predecessors, Dionysius, when accused, had justified 
himself before the Pope.* Athanasius himself sought the 
protection of the Bishop of Rome. Theodosius a.p. 380 
sent forth an edict wherein he says: ‘‘We desire that 
“all peoples find themselves in that religion which is de- 
‘ clared to this very day to have been delivered to the Ro- 
““mans by the Apostle Peter, and which Pope Damasus 


40 Mansi, ConczZ iv. 1290, Hefele, ii. 200. Leo, ZZ. 25; 65, 3. Hefele, ii, 336. Cf. 
Vine. Lir., Common. c. 9 


41 See Jungman, Dissert. in H. £. vol. i. p. 155. 
42 De Sent. Dion. c.13. De Synod Nicaen.c.26. Hefele, i. 255. 


* Harnack, a very competent critic, has recently defended the opinion that the treatise 
De Aleatoribus, generally found among the works of S, Cyprian, is an encyclical 
letter of Pope Victor. In that treatise occurs the following passage: ‘‘ Et quoniam 
** nobis divina ac paterna pietas A fostolatus ducatum contulit et Vicartame Doniini 
‘* Sede: coelesti dignatione ornavit, et orzginem authentict A postolatus, super 
**quem Christus fundavit ecclesiam in superiore nostro portamus, accepta simul 
** potestate solvendi: salutari doctrina admonemur, ne cum delinquentibus assidue 
** ignoscimus, ipsi cum eis pariter torqueamur. Ideo sal terrae dicimur, ut ex nobis 
“ fraternitas coelesti sapientia saliatur.” Tr. 


486 THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE, 


“and Peter of Alexandria, a man of Apostolic holiness, follow.‘ 
“In a letter to Pope Symmachus the Eastern Church says: 
“Daily the Apostle teaches thee that thou shouldst feed the 
“sheep of the whole world committed to thee.” 4 Cyril of 
Alexandria while regularly addressing Nestorius as colleague 
(cvAXevrovpyds), calls Pope Celestine the Father (zarjp), with 
whose holiness the churches, according to custom, are in 
communion. Theodoret’s language, again, is so strong that we 
fancy we are reading S, Jerome. Against the Zatrocinium or 
Robber-synod, he writes a most touching letter to the Pope, 
acknowledging his Primacy, and asking him to bring help 
to the Church of God tossed about by the storm. “But I 
“shall await the sentence of your Apostolic Chair, and I beg 
“and adjure your holiness to help me in my appeal to your 
“right and just judgment-seat, and to allow me to come to you 
“and prove that the Apostolic doctrine and mine are one.” 
“IT await your decision, Bid me to abide by your judgment, 
“and I shall bear it.” “TI entreat your holiness, . . . have 
“pity on me, oppressed in my old age with calumnies, and 
“persecuted without cause, and deign to think me worthy of 
“your zeal and care. But above all guard the faith that is 
“fraudulently attacked, and preserve the paternal inheritance 
*fof the churches from corruption.” 45 

23. ‘The same may be said of the Eastern Councils, although 
at this time New Rome was straining every nerve to raise herself 
to an equal rank with Old Rome. We shall not adduce as 
direct evidence statements like the following: Ecclesia Romana 
semper habuit primatum, which was also read in the Council of 
Chalcedon ; nor again the words of the edict of Valentinian III: 
“Since the merit of S. Peter, the prince of the Episcopal dignity, 
“and the dignity of the City of Rome, and the sentence of the 
“Holy Synod have confirmed the Primacy of the Apostolic 


43 Codex. Theod. xvi. 1, 2, Sozom., Hist, Eccé. vii. 4 
44 Mansi, viii. 221. Cynill., Zp. rx. 
45 fist. 113. 116. 118. Hefele, ii. 390, 


THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE. 487 


“Chair, no one is to arrogantly undertake anything against the 
“authority of this Chair.”46 For, these statements have direct 
reference to the Patriarchal dignity of Rome. Nevertheless 
the reasons assigned for that dignity in the Roman Church 
show its connection with the Piimacy. For the same reason 
the 6th canon of Niczea cannot be adduced as an argument 
against the Primacy; it, too, has reference to the Patriarchal 
privilege.47 But it is certainly significant that the two Roman 
legates signed the decrees of the Council immediately after 
Hosius. This fact would go to confirm the opinion of Gelasius 
of Cyzicus that Hosius presided in the place of the bishop of 
Rome; which opinion also finds its support in certain passages 
in the writings of Athanasius and Theodoret.48 The Synod of 
Constantinople a.p. 381 claims but a primacy of honour for 
the Church of Constantinople; but the Roman Church only 
recognized what that Synod decided in matters of faith. The 
Council of Chalcedon went a step further by simply claiming 
the second rank for the patriarch of Constantinople. The Papal 
legates forthwith protested against the canon which cannot, 
consequently, be considered a canon of a General Council ;* 
nor was it ever confirmed by the Pope. On the contrary, Leo 
offered strenuous and persistent opposition to canon 28. But 
the Primacy of the Pope was fully recognized both by the 
Fathers of Chalcedon, and of Ephesus. By his celebrated 
epistola dogmatica Leo had prepared the way for the decision of 
the Council, as Celestine had done at Ephesus. The Fathers 
assembled recognized in him their leader, and head, the voice 
and teaching of Peter, the Apostle. Nothing could induce Leo 
to countenance the ambitious projects of Constantinople. To 
build up in any other way than upon the rock which Christ 
has laid, he held as fatal to the Church. Constantinople, in 


46 Leo, ZA, 12. 

47. Hefele, i. 397. 40%. 

48 Hefele, i. 40. 302. 

49 Hase, p. 135 thinks that the rejection of the canon was a ‘dangerous precedent!’ See 
Hefele, ii. 531. 563. 


488 THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE. 


fact, was not an Apostolic See, and no degree of personal 
holiness in its bishops, or of political external magnificence 
could make it such.” Tor the same reasons Gregory the 
Great had to administer a severe rebuke to the Patriarch 
for assuming the new and unheard-of title of ‘‘ Gicumeni- 
cal Patriarch.’’ 

Leo’s successors, following in his footsteps, have claimed 
the privilegium Petrt for Rome. It was her privilege to be 
the rock upon which the Church was built ; to have the 
keys for binding and loosing; it was her duty, there- 
fore, to safeguard the faith, to feed the lambs and sheep, 
to watch over all the churches of the world, and to keep 
them from error.” Their appeal is to the authority of Fetes, 
or of Peter and Paul, but never, except once,” to Paul 
alone. Hence when the Eusebians, after deposing Atha- 
nasius in a synod at Antioch, A.D. 340, declined the in- 
vitation to come to Rome, with the remark that the author- 
ity of a bishop does not depend on the greatness of his 
city, and that all bishops are of equal honour, Julius I. 
thus replied : ‘‘Do you not know that it is customary to 
‘write to us first in order that what is right may be de- 
“cided first from here (2v@ev) ? If, therefore, a bishop was 
“(as you suppose) suspect, the matter ought to have been 
‘reported to our Church.’’8 Socrates thus remarks upon 
“their proceeding: Julius, the bishop of Rome, was 
‘neither present nor represented by any one; though 
‘there is an ecclesiastical canon forbidding churches to 
“make laws without the consent of the Roman bishop.”’ 
The synod of Sardica, A.D. 344, also confesses that the 
bishops of all provinces send their reports to the head, that 
is, the chair of Peter. Boniface I. writes to say that the 
greatest churches of the East are wont to consult the Apos: 
tolic See in matters of grave importance, and that Theo- 


50 Gregory M., Zn Reg. i. 5 (Opp. iii. 2,250). Hase, p. 135. 

51 Langen, Kirchenvdter, p. 136. 

52 Gregor. M., 7z Reg. I. 5 (Opp. III. 2, 250). ase, p. 135. 

53 Athan., Afol. c. Arian. c. 35. Cf. c. 26. Hefele, I. 498. Mohler, E¢kanas. I. 66, 
Socrat., II. 8, 17. 

54 Hefele I. 543, 611. Bonif., Ef. 16, 6. 


THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE. 489 


dosius had asked Pope Damasus to confirm the election of 
Nectarius to the Patriarchal See of Coistantinople, 

24, In the face of these testimonies from all quarters of the 
Church, from men whose knowledge and integrity is beyond 
suspicion, —testimonies at once clear and precise and unwaver- 
ing,—it is futile to assign either the political ascendency of 
Rome, or her usurping, aspiring ambition, as the cause of Papal 
supremacy. For, the reason invariably assigned by all is not 
the political power of the city, but the fact that Peter continues 
to live in the See of Rome, which is therefore the institution of 
Christ. And as for Papal usurpation, it has never yet been 
explained, how the Popes could have successfully advanced 
their claims, had they been new and unheard-of, or out of 
harmony with the general faith and conviction of the entire 
Church. For the rest, there are witnesses other than Popes, and, 
if possible, even more numerous, who acknowledge Rome’s pri- 
macy and invoke her Apostolic authority. How theroughly 
the Papal claim was recognized by the Churches, is made 
especially clear from the transactions and letters that passed 
between Africa and Rome in the Pelagian controversy. ‘The 
African bishops report to Pope Innocent I, and ask him to 
confirm theit decision. He writes back to the Fathers of 
Milevis A.D. 417: ‘ Whenever the cause of faith is in question, 
“TJ believe that all the brethren and our episcopal brethren 
“report to Peter, that is, to him who bears his name and 
“honour, as you, beloved, have done ; such (a course) wilt be 
“for the general profit of all the churches of the whole world.” 
Again, to the Synod of Carthage, A.D. 417, he writes: “ Not 
“by human, but by divine thought have the Fathers decreed, 
“that everything . . . should first be brought to the netics 
“of the Apostolic See, in order that by its compiete authority 
“the just decision should be confirmed, and that trom thence 
“© other churches should learn what to command.” Pope Zosimus 
also writes to the bishops in Africa A.D. 318 in this strain: 
“ Although the tradition of the Fathers has atiivured to the 


490 THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE, 


“Apostolic See so great an authority that no one dared to 
‘dispute its decisions, and though this has always been observed 
“and sanctioned by canons and rules, and though the prevailing 
“discipline of the Church till now pays due reverence to the 
“name of Peter, from whom it (the See) descends . . . .« 
“nevertheless we have , . .”58 With general Councils the 
case seemed scmewhat different, because the Papal legates 
presided ; still it is probable that they also required approbation 
in some form or other. For Gelasius says: “To none other 
“than the first See does it belong to carry out the decision of 
“‘a synod approved by the consent of the whole Church ; to 
“the first See] also does it appertain to confirm by its authority 
“every synod, and to maintain its enactments, according to its 
“supremacy, which the Apostle Peter has received by the word 
‘fof the Lord, and which it has ever since held and maintained.” 
In the same letter Gelasius likewise safeguards the right of 
aj;peal to Rome for all Christians.56 

25. It is far more likely that the real reason why Rome was 
chosen as the seat of the Primacy, is that assigned by Leo. 
Tacitus had said of Rome that it was a cesspool into which 
every country in the world poured its filth and corruption. And 
Leo thought that the rock of the Church was planted in Rome, 
because it was in Rome that the opinions of philosophers had 
to be combated, the vanity of earthly wisdom put to confusion, 
the worship of demons destroyed, impious sacrifices abrogated ; 
in Rome, the great seat of superstition, where every error 
stalked in broad daylight,—the citadel of truth had to be 
erected.*7 No wonder that the emperors recognized the Primacy 
of the Roman Church, Its importance, even from a political 
point of view, was incontestable, Eusebius mentions that 
Aurelian in giving judgment against Paul of Samosata, decided 


55 Mansi, iv. 366, 

56 Gelas., EZ. 26,3. 5.44. Decret. Ci.c. xxv. Q.1.¢c. 2. For further passages see 
Petav., De Eccl. Hier, V1. 15.16. Schwane II. 847-893. Heinrich II. 325-388. 
On the “ Old Catholic” side, see Langen, Kirchenv. p. 136. Unsehld. 1. 55. 88. 

57 Sermo, 82, 3. 


THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE. 49I 


that the Episcopal palace should belong to the one in com- 
munion with the bishops of Italy and of Rome.®8 Valentinian 
III. incorporated the Primacy in the code of laws, 

26. As a result of development the title of Pope (fafa, 
cdrmas, watip) came gradually to be reserved to the bishop 
of Rome. Originally the word was used to express the simple 
relation between master and disciple; and in this sense it 
probably dates back to a very ancient oriental usage. Thence 
it passed into the Old and New Testaments. In the Christian 
Church, as we learn from Tertullian and Cyprian, the name 
was chiefly given to bishops. In the 4th and 5th centuries we 
often meet it in both Eastern and Western writers.5? Augnstine 
uses it frequently. But from the sixth century onward it was 
gradually reserved for the bishop of Rome, and in the eighth 
this was the common practice, although exceptions are to be 
met with as late as the end of the middle ages. The Council of 
Chalcedon called the bishop of Rome ‘ Cécumenical Patriarch,’ 
but no Pope adopted the title.6 Gregory the Great and 
Leo IX. declined it. Constantine Pogonatus in a letter to the 
Pope calls him ‘universal Father’ (otxoupevixds tarmas)® The 
Synod of Pavia a.pD. 998 rebuked the arrogance of the arch- 
bishop of Milan in accepting the title of Papa. The Synod of 
Rheims a.p. 1049 declared the bishop of Rome the only Primas 
and Afostolicus in the Church. Otto I. addresses the Pope as 
the “Supreme Bishop and Universal Pope.” In addition to 
these titles, he was, at various times, also called ‘“ Bishcp of 
Bishops,”® “the Head of Heads,”® “the Father of Fathers. 

27. The general belief and conviction of the Church, in this 
as in other matters, is borne out by the involuntary testimony 
s8 pist. Eccl. vii. 30. 
sg Mahler, Patrol. p.15. Kraus, Real-Encycl. ii. 581. August., De Gest. Pelag. i. 1 

Ep. 223. Valent., Ad Aug. Ep. (Migne x- 911). 
60 Hefele, iv. 768. 773. 
6x Hefele, iii, 250. iv. 653. 728. 731- 785- 653> 
62 Tertull. De Pud. c. 1. 


63 Theodor. Stud. i. 34. 
64 Ep. Gelas. 11. See Hettinger, Die Kirchl, Vollgewalt. 1887, p. 772 


492 THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE. 


of Heretics. They, too, have at one time or another recog- 


nized the Roman Primacy, as long as there was any hope 
of winning it over to their side. Hagemann’s remark on 
this subject is happy. He says: ‘‘ The founders of heresy, 
‘‘ from Simon Magus to the Gnostic chiefs, Valentine and 


‘“ Marcion, were ever impelled by acurious instinct towards . 


‘“ Rome, as if their doctrine, once the sect were established 
“in Rome, would receive a higher kind of consecration 
‘and confirmation.’’* Marcion only began a schism after 
his doctrine had been rejected by the Pope. Felicissimus 
of Africa travelled to Rome to obtain the recognition of 
Fortunatus. The Eusebians strive to win Julius I. over to 
their side. Pelagius and Celestius were enabled to defy 
the bishops of Africa by professing their faith at Rome. 
Nestorius and Eutyches knew full well that they could not 
win the day unless they gave a satisfactory account of 
themselves at Rome.® It ray, therefore, justly be said, 
that heretics have always been fully alive to the great gain 
that would accrue to them in public opinion from being in 
communion with Rome, and that they only rejected the 
Primacy when it had rejected them. But in all these 
fierce religious controversies victory has uniformly rested 
with Rome. All other ancient churches, all the Apostolic 
Sees of the East, fell in turn a prey first to heretics and 
finally to infidels. But Rome has stood unshaken and un- 
moved ; she has saved the Apostolic Tradition, the integ- 
rity of the faith, and of the constitution of the Church. Is 
this blind chance? Or is it history furnishing a natural 
commentary upon the Petrine Texts ? 

The formula Hormisdae, that is, the profession of faith 
(regula fidei) which the bishops of Epirus, March 13705 hae 
sent to Pope Hormisdas, and which had to be signed by the 
Oriental bishops, holds that historv is a commentary upon 
the words of the Gospel. It runs as follows: ‘‘ The Rule 


65 Die Rim. Kirche, p. 47. 


66 Epiphan., 42,42. Cyprian, Zf. 55, 14. Hefele, I. 491. Aug., De Pece. Orig, c. 2. 5. 
6. Hefele, II. 159. 334. 


67 Hefele I. 491, 


s 
es ee eee 


4 
, 
‘ 
“ 
& 
3 
- 
2 
b 
: 
4 


THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE. 493 


“of Faith : The first act of salvation is to keep rightly the 
“‘rule of faith, and in no way to deviate from the decrees 
“of the Fathers. And in as much as the words of our 
‘““Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed over, who said: 
“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my 
“*“ Church,’ etc. . . . These words are confirmed by 
“ their effects ; for in the Apostolic See religion has always 
‘““ been preserved spotless.’’ Taking their stand upon this 
conviction they proceed to condemn Nestorius, Eutyches, 
Dioscorus, Timotheus Aelurus, Petrus (Acacius) and Peter 
of Antioch—all heretics and all who are in communion with 
them. Then they continue thus: “‘ Wherefore we receive 
‘and approve all the letters of Pope Leo, and all that he 
*“ wrote concerning the Christian religion. Therefore, as 
““we have said, following in all things the Apostolic See 
‘“and professing all its decrees, I hope to be worthy to be 
‘‘in that one communion with you which the Apostolic See 
** enjoins, in which is the perfect and true solidity of Chris- 
‘tian religion ; and I promise also that the names of those 
** who are separated from the communion of the Catholic 
** Church, that is, who are not united in mind to the Apos- 
**tolic See, shall not be recited in the Holy Mysteries. 
‘This, my profession, I have subscribed with my own 
*“hand, and presented to thee, Hormisdas, Holy and Ven- 
‘erable Pope of the City of Rome. xv. Kal. April. Aga- 
‘* pito viro clarissimo Consule.’’” 

Protestant writers generally recognize the preponder- 
ating influence of the Roman Church and the Papacy 
in matters of faith and religion, but they fry to account 
‘for it in a different way. The historical fact is as great 
a stumbling-block in their path as the Scriptural texts, 
Here are the words of Harnack: *‘ The Roman Church 
‘‘was the first to have a formulated baptismal profes- 
‘‘sion of faith; the first to have a canon of the New 
‘‘ Testament, and a list of Episcopal succession. It was 
‘* she, who first turned to use the idea of the Apostolic suc- 


68 Mansi, viii. 407. Hefele, II. 673. 


494 THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE, 


“cession of bishops. It is toa Roman bishop, moreover, that 
“the Eastern Churches trace all the most important Apostolic 
‘ordinances regulating the organization of the Church, and, 
“as it seems, rightly so. True, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and 
“Origen rose up against the pretensions of Calixtus—these 
“were therefore innovations—(!); nevertheless Calixtus gained 
“‘the day. Accordingly there can be little doubt that the 
“fundamental Apostolic ordinances and laws of Catholicism 
‘were framed and shaped in the same city that had also made 
“Jaws (civil) for the world at large.”®® The same author is of 
Opinion that such sayings as ‘Lcclesi@ semper habutt primatum, 
or, ‘Catholic and Roman-Catholic are identical,’ are gross 
fictions invented in the interest of the several occupants of the 
Roman See. Still, he thinks that, if transferred to the Christian 
‘community’ existing in the chief city of the world, they contain 
a great truth, without which the process by which the Churches 
were united and catholicized is unintelligible. This, translated 
inte other words, means that without these fictions the Church 
would have been neither one nor catholic. Svch is the divine 
force of fiction! Another writer speaking of S. Boniface, who 
has recently been roughly mauled for romanizing the German 
Church, says: “ Boniface certainly romanized central Europe; 
“but without Rome it would have been impossible to rear our 
*niedizval culture upon the ruins of the Old World. The 
“Charch would have been splintered up into so many national 
‘Churches, and Christianity would have been still further pagan- 
“ized.”70 Tschakert thus delivers himself on the same subject: 
“Meanwhile the position of the Roman b'shop grew stronger 
“and stronger from century to century. When the flood of 
“barbarian irruption began to sweep away the social and political 
** framework, the Roman chair alone stood firm as a rock in the 
69 Harnack, i, 3623 371%. 
79 Looss, Theol. Liter. Zettg. 1817. No. 8. How the English Church was preserved 
from the same fate by Rome and Rome alone, may be seen from Méhler’s dissere 
tation: Ansel, Ergbischof von Canterbury, ein Beitrag etc. Ges. Werke, i. 32 


Sce also Weingarten, Taded/en, p. 19. Funk, Histor /a4#d. 1883, p. 5. Kirchen- 
geschichte, p. 19% 


THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE. 495 


“sea. Odoacer, Alaric, Attila, Theodoric—they came and went; 
“but the See of Rome besides standing firm as the rock of 
“the Christian Church, also became the harbour and refuge of 
“Greek and Koman culture. Add to this, that in all dogmatic 
‘controversies the Romian bishop, with the shrewd practical 
“sense of the Romans, has generally known how to keep the 
“‘solden mean. When Athanasius was persecuted in the East, 
“he found support in Rome, and the Council of Chalcedon 
“ was simply building dogmas upon the mind and thoughts of 
“Teo.”71 But how different is the account given by Leo him- 
self, who saved Rome from Attila, the ‘* scourge of God.” 
Addressing the city of Rome, he says: ‘*The Apostles are holy 
“ Fathers and true Shepherds, who have incorporated thee into 
“the kingdom of heaven, and founded thee in a much better 
“and happier way than those who laid the foundations of thy 
“walls. They have raised thee, by the chair of Peter, to the 
‘the glory of being a holy and chosen people, a priestly and 
‘royal city, the head of the world. Now, by divine religion, 
‘thou wieldest sway over a wider tract, than thou didst formerly 
“by thy earthly power.” 

28. There is no need to pursue the historical argument for 
the Primacy of the Pope further. An impartial study of the 
theoretical doctrine and the practical claims of the Papacy in 
the Middle Ages will show that they were but the natural 
outcome and development of the previous belief and practice 
of the Church which we have expounded at length in this 
chapter. Papal supremacy ever based its claims upon the 
Petrine texts of the Gospel, as upon the great divine charter of 
the Church’s constitution. That power grew and developed, 
like everything else in the Church, with time and circumstances ; 
its application became more extended and intense as the need 
arose. To expect that every application of Papal power should be 
exegetically provable from the texts of Holy Writ is idle and 


qx Tschakert, p. 48 
72 Sermo 82,1 


496 THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE, 


anreasonable, Christ instituted the Primacy as_a living intelli- 
gent force, not as a scheme with all its powers minutely drawn 
out on paper. It was enough to know that the Apostle Peter 
was ever living in the See of Rome, and that the Pope could, 
at all times, be addressed in the words of Theodorus Studita 
(d. 826) as “‘ Apostolic Head, divinely appointed Shepherd of 
“the flock, Key-bearer of the kingdom of heaven, Rock of the 
“faith upon whom the Church Catholic is built.” M/colas L, 
when protesting against the illegitimate election of Photius to 
the See of Constantinople (A.D. 86r) strongly urges the rights 
of the Roman Primacy. The supreme judgeship over the whole 
Church was a privilege granted by God and inherited from 
Peter and Paul. And these rights were admitted in the 
livelius satisfactionis of the 8th general Council (A.D. 869). 

29.* ‘To this epoch (about 850 A.D.) belongs the now cele- 
brated Pseudo-Isidore, author of the Halse Decretals. By these 
are meant certain letters of the early Popes (e.g., Anacletus, 
Pius, Alexander I., Marcellus, Julius), which he composed and 
represented as having emanated from them. In these Decrefals 
he puts statements into the mouths of the Popes which they 
never uttered. They were, in fact, the expressions of a later 
age. The forgery, however inexcusable, is still perfectly mtelii- 
giile. The Church has ever held fast to Tradition as her 
leading principle. Wil nisi guod traditum est is her standing 
rule. But together with this principle there is another, namely 
that of development, which, generally speaking, passes through 
three stages : (1) simple faith or implicit tradition ; (2) analysis 
or discussion ; and (3) universal consent or definition and ex- 
plicit proposal. Hence the not unnatural temptation, especially 
in men of more zeal than discretion, to represent doctrines as 
formally and explicitly contained in the earlier tradition, when 
as a matter of fact, they are but virtually and implicitly con- 
tained therein, 

The False Decretals are a case in point. The doctrines 
advanced in them regarding the Papal power were firmly estab- 


~ 


THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE, 497 


lished in the religious belief of the age. They were clear- 
ly the natural outcome of the Primacy which, as we have 
seen, was always believed, and hence they were generally 
received at the time. They contained nothing new. Hase 
himself admits that ‘‘ they were not made under the eyes 
*o1 the Pope, norin his immediate interest “. .~ . Dut 
**the Pope simply accepted what the general belief of the 
‘“age offered him.’’* The differences between the Pope’s 
power in the early and later centuries affect Canon Law 
rather than dogma. The latter isever the same. It is the 
Primacy or Headship of the Universal Church pure and 
simple. Its manifestations, as set forth in the enactments 
of Canon Law, will vary with time and circumstances. 
Ultimately Pseudo-Isidore rests on no other basis. ‘‘ The 
Roman See,’’ he says, ‘‘ received from Christ Himself the 
‘Primacy over the whole Church, and its authority is 
‘based upon that of Peter and Paul.’’ That the bishops, 
who are pillars in the Church, are built upon Peter, the rock 
and foundation,” may be a clearer enunciation of what we 
read in the Fathers, but it is not materially different from 
their doctrine. Whatever effect upon the rights and privi- 
leges of Primates the False Decretals may have had, their 
importance for the Papal claims, at any rate, is wholly im- 
aginary. The Papal fabric, that was built up in the ninth 
and following centuries, rested as heretofore upon Apos- 
tolic Tradition, not on Pseudo-Isidore. Nor, again, is it 
surprising that the Papal prerogatives are chiefly vindicated 
in the letters and decrees of the Popes. The same thing is 
done in civil legislation. Governing bodies define their 
own rights according to usageoragreement. The Primacy, 
if a divine institution, must necessarily be self-asserting. 
30. The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, then, have wrought no 
change whatever in the organic constitution of the Church. 
The relation between Pope and bishops, and their respective 
rights in the Middle Ages remained what they were before. 


73 P. 142. 
74 Inthe supposed letter of Athanasius to Pope Julius. 


498 THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE, 


Peter Lombard, who calls Peter the first of the Apostles, and 
the Pope his successor, is even credited by some with having 
“pronounced in favour of the Episcopal system, and with 
“having based it on biblical grounds.”75 “There are,” says 
S. Bonaventure, “many bishops, some archbishops, a few 
“patriarchs, and only one Father of Fathers who is rightly 
“called Pope. For he is the first and highest spirituai Father 
“of all Fathers, the Shepherd of all the faithful, the excellent 
“Hierarch, the one Bridegroom, the undivided Head, the 
“Sovereign Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, the Fountain and 
“Source and Rule of all Ecclesiastical power, from which all 
“regular power flows to the lower members of the Church; all 
“this is in perfect accord with his exalted position in the Eccles- 
“jastical hierarchy.” In the same way S. Thomas Aquinas,’7 
who is accused by some with being the first to erect the plenitude 
of Papal power into a dogma, looks upon the Pope as a king 
in his own kingdom, while the bishops, who have a share in his 
government of the Church, are like the judges in the various 
cities of the realm, “Because the Sovereign Pontiff is the 
“representative of Christ, therefore has he the full power of 
“dispensation.” In his Opusculum against the errors of the 
Greeks (A.D, 1261) occurs a passage, similar to that in the Bull 
Unam Sanctam, to the effect that it is necessary for salvation 
to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. The chief propositions 
laid down by S. Thomas are: The Pope is the highest of all 
the bishops. He holds the Primacy over the whole Church, 
He has the plenitude of the Ecclesiastical Power. He has the 
power given to Peter to decide in matters of faith, He is 
above the Patriarchs. 
78 Sextet. iv. 24, 9. 
76 Brevit. vi. 12, See the New Edit. by Ant. a Vicetia, Frib. 1881. p. 563. Schwane 
7 aie d. xx. q. 1. a. 4. ad. 33 d. xxiv. q. 3.8.2. C. Gent. 1. iv. c. 76. Summa 
ii. ii. q. 88. a, 12, ad. 3. I1]-Swpfl. q* qo. a. 6 See Leitner, Der H. Thomas 
tiber des Unfehlb. Lehramt des Papstes. Freiburg 1872, p. 70. On his Opusculum 
¢. ervores Graccorum see Grauert, Histor. Jahrbuch 1888, p. 146. Schwane, iii. 


547. 552. The passages from the Fathers were taken from a collection of Urban 1V. 
Against it, see Langen, Un/ehild. iii. 1006 


THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE, 499 


31. Coming to the Medieval Counct/s, we find the same 
doctrines affirmed. The fourth Zateran Council (A.D. 1215) in 
senewing the old privilege of the Patriarchal Sees, simply says 
that after the Roman Church, which is the Mother and Teac! er 
of all the faithful, Constantinople holds the first place, Alexan- 
dria the second, Antioch the third, and Jerusalem the fourth.78 
But the Councl of Lyons, A.D. 1274, treats expressly of the 
Primacy of the Roman Church. It drew up a form of profession 
to be made on oath by the Greeks in the following words: 
‘The Holy Roman Church has supreme and full Primacy over 
“the Universal Church, which it truly and humbly acknow- 
“ledges to have received from the Lord Himself in Blessed 
* Peter, the Prince and Head of the Apostles, with plenitude of 
“power. And as before all others it is bound to defend the 
“truth, so also, if any questions arise concerning the faith, 
“they ought by its judgment to be defined. . , And tothe 
““same all churches are subject, and to it the prelates of the 
‘same render obedience and reverence, But to this (Church) 
‘‘the plenitude of power so belongs that it admits the other 
“cliurches to a participation in its care. With heart and voice 
“we confess that which the Sacred and Holy Roman Churck 
“truly holds, and faithfully teaches and preaches.”79 The 
Council of Florence, A.D. 1439, continues in the same strain in 
the Decretum Unionis : “We define, that the Roman Pontiff is 
** Successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and true 
‘Vicar of Christ, and the Head of the whole Church, and the 
“Father and Doctor of all Christians; and to him in Blessed 
“Peter was delivered, by our Lord Jesus Christ, the plenary 
** power of feeding, ruling and governing the Universal Church, 
“as it is also contained in the acts of the Oecumenical Councils 
“and the Sacred Canons.”8 The f/th Lateran Council A.D. 
1520 {Bulla; £xurge Domine] condemned the propositions 


98 Hefele V. p. 882. 
99 Professio Fidie in Concilio Lugdun. See Hefele, vi. 122, s. 18: 
80 Hefele, vii. 745. 753. See Hergenréther, Kirchengesthichie, il. 85% 


500 % THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE. 


“The Roman Pontiff, the Successor of Peter, is not the Vicar 
“of Christ constituted by Christ Himself in Blessed Peter over 
“all the Churches of the whole world.” The same Council, 
four years previously, had laid it down that “ only the Roman 
“Pontiff, for the time being, hed authority over all the Councils, 
“and the full right and power to call them together, to transfer 
“or dissolve them, as is clear from the testimony of Scripture, 
“the sayings of the Fathers and.the Roman Pontiffs our prede- 
“cessors, the decrees of the Sacred Canons and the confession 
“of the Councils themselves.”8! The Papal system, there‘ore, 
as it is called in.opposition to the episcopal system of the 
Council of Basle and Constance, had gained the victory all 
over the Church. The Council of Trent 'made no definitions 
concerning the nature of the Church, partly because the Fathers 
could not agree upon the precise formulation of the doctrines 
and partly because they found that the definition of Florence 
was sufficient for all purposes. In four places, however, it 
describes the Roman Church as “ Zeclesiarum omnium Mater et 
Magistra.” Criminal causes against bishops involving deposition 
or deprivation were reserved to the judgment of the Apostolic 
See. ‘Phe Papal confirmation of the Council was solicited and 
given. ‘The creed of the Council contains the following words ; 
“T acknowledge the Holy, Catholic, ‘and Apostolic Roman 
“Church as the Mother and Teacher of all the churches, and 
“I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, 
“the Successor of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of 
“* Christ.’’8? 

32. Finally the Council of the Vatican, A.D. 1870, has 
summed up the entire previous tradition of the Church con- 
cerning the Papal Primacy and _ has, moreover, declared its 
true and genuine sense. Starting from the Primacy of Peter it 
defines (a) that it was one of real jurisdiction over the whole 
Church; (b) that it was immediately and directly promised 
81 See Denzinger, Enchiridion No. 622. 649. 


82 Sess. xxiv. De Reform. c. 1. See also Manning: The Oecum. Councit and the 
Infall. of the Rom. Pextif{; a Pastoral Letter to the Clergy. London 1869, p. 69, 


THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE. 50r 


and given to Blessed Peter, in what we have called the 
Petrine texts. It rejects the perverse opinion of those 
‘‘who while they distort the form of government estab- 
‘‘ lished by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny that Peter 
‘fin his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, 
‘‘ whether taken separately or together, was endowed by 
‘* Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction ; or 
‘* of those who assert that the same primacy was not be- 
‘stowed immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter him- 
“self, but upon the Church, and through the Church on 
‘* Peter as her minister.’’* In the second chapter the Coun- 
cil goes on to declare that the Primacy of Peter was insti- 
tuted in perpetuity ‘‘to secure the perpetual welfare and 
‘‘ lasting good of the Church ;” and that Peter’s successors 
are the bishops of the Roman See. ‘‘ For none can doubt, 
‘‘and it is known to all ages, that the Holy and Blessed 
‘‘ Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of 
‘* the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church . . . lives, 
‘presides and judges, to this day and always, in his suc- 
‘“cessors, the bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was 
‘“* founded by him and consecrated by his blood. . . Where- 
‘fore it has at all times been necessary that every particu- 
‘lar church—that is to say, the faithful throughout the 
‘* world—should agree with the Roman Church, on account 
‘‘ of the greater authority of the princedom which this has 
‘‘ received ; that all being associated in the unity of that See 
‘‘ whence the rights of communion spread to all, might grow 
‘‘ together as members of one Head in the compact unity of 
‘the body. If, then, any should deny that itis by the insti- 
‘“ tution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that Blessed 
‘‘Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the 
‘Primacy over the Universal Church, or that the Roman 
‘* Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter in this Primacy ; 
‘‘let him be anathema.’’* In the third chapter the Coun- 
cil proceeds still more fully to explain the nature and 


83 Constit. Dogmat. de Eccles.,cap.1. (Card. Manning’s Transl.) 
84 Jdzd. cap. II. 


502 THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE, 


Character of the Primacy. In the first place, the Pope’s 
supreme power, it says, is an ordinary power over all other 
churches ; it is a truly efzsecAal and an fmmedtate power, so that 
all members of the Church, “ both individually and collective 
“ly, are bound by their duty of hierarchical subordination and 
“true obedience” to submit to it in all matters of discipline and 
government as well as in faith and morals. In the second 
place, this supremacy of the Pope, it says, is in no way preju- 
dicial “to the ordinary and immediate power of episcopal 
“jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have been set by the 
“Holy Ghost to succeed and hold the place of the Apostles, - 
“feed and govern each his own flock, as true Pastors, that this 
“their episcopal authority is really asserted, strengthened and 
“ protected by the Supreme and Universal Pastor. , .” Lastly, 
the Council deduces from these data the right of free and 
independent communication with all the faithful of the world, 
and the right of all to appeal to its judgment, from which there 
is no appeal. It thus concludes: “If then any shall say that 
“the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of ¢usfection or direc- 
“tion, and not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the 
“Universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith 
“and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline 
“and government of the Church spread throughout the world ; 
“or assert that he possesses merely the principal part, and not 
“all the fulness of this supre © power; or that this power 
“which ke enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over 
“each and all the churches, and over each and al! the Pastors 
“and the faithful ; let him be anathema.’”8 


33. Instead of any reflections* of our own we shall con- 


85 Jbidcap. IIL. 


* Qne reflection, however, may not be out of place here. There are those who 
maintain that the Papal system is not founded upon Scripture and Apostolic 
Tradition, but is a later overgrowth in the constitution of the Church. And 
there are others who while maintaining the contrary, yet defend their position 
in such a way as to deny all growth and development, whether practical or 
theoretical. The truth, as has been shown-in the present and previous chap. 
ters, lies in the mean. The real point at issue, which the defenders of the 


THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE, 503 


clude this chapter with the words spoken by S. Anselm, Primate 
of Canterbury, in an assembly of Peers Spiritual and Temporal : 
** Since you, who call yourselves the Christian flock, and you 
‘who call yourselves the princes of the people, give me, who 
‘am your superior, no other but arbitrary and human advice, 
*‘T shall take refuge with the Chief Shepherd, the Prince of the 
“world, the Angel of Great Counsel in what concerns my 
“affairs or rather those of Him and His Church. Whatever 
‘counsel He will give, I shall follow. He said to Peter, the 
“‘ Prince of the Apostles: Thou art Peter, etc. Then He also 
“said to the other Apostles in common: He that heareth you, 
“heareth Me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me. As 
“He spoke those words chiefly to Peter and in him to all the 
“ Apostles, so likewise have they reference first to the successor 
“and in him to all the bishops as successors of the Apostles. 
“Not to an Emperor or King or Duke or Count has the 
*‘ administration of the Church been committed, But inasinuch 
‘as we are to be subject also to civil Rulers, the same Angel 
“‘ of Great Counsel has said: Render ta Cesar what is Czesar’s, 
“and to God what is God’s. This is the word of God, this 
“His counsel. To this I shall keep; this will guide me; 
“from this I shall not swerve in any way. Therefore hear you 
“all and each, that in the things of God I shali obey the suc- 
“cessor of Peter, and in the things that belong by right to 
“the civil power of my Lord, the King, I shall, to the best of 
‘knowledge and conscience, render faithful assistance.” %6 


Papacy are able to prove, and its opponents unable to deny, is that the Papal 
power has grown consistently, and that the Catholic doctrines of the various 
ages concerning it, from the Gospels and §. Irenaeus down to the Vatican 
Council, are homogeneous. (Tr.) 

86 Mohler, 4 ¢. p. 91. [For other English testimonies to the Pope’s supremacy se< 
Cardinal Manning, The cum. Council and the Infall. 99 p. 73 77- Also 
H. I. D. Ryder, Catholic Conti ove: sy, 3 Ed. p. 79°83. Tr.) 


CHAPTER XIV. 


THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 


1.* Itis one thing to say that the Pope as successor of 
S. Peter inherits the fulness of apostolic ‘and ecclesiastical 
power, and quite another, to specify each and every right 
included in the power of his Primacy. This cannot be done 
by mere @ friori inference. Experience alone will enable us 
us to form a true estimate. The power of the head of 
the Church, as we have repeatedly remarked, is a living 
force in a living organism. As the latter grows, and expands, 
as it maintains its life under ever-varying circumstances of 
time and climate, assimilating what is suitable, rejecting and 
eliminating what is hurtful, so also does the former grow 
and develope. The relation is aptly expressed in the 
following words of Schulte: “Supposing then that, for the 
“first thousand years, and even beyond, the Primacy or head- 
“ship cf the Church had not visibly and prominently come to 
“the front, it would not matter in the least to one who is 
“resolved to view things impartially and reasonably; for it is 
* plain that Christ has not drawn up a charter of specific rights 
“to be exercised by the Roman Pontiff, but has given to the 
* Church a head with power to bind and loose in heaven and on 
“earth, to govern and rule the church, to take the place of 
“the Invisible Head. ‘This being so, it is evident that from 
“such a position must needs flow each and every sight that is 
“necessary, according to times and circumstances, tor the 


THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 595. 


‘covernment of the Church.”! The Primacy of the Pope 
assumes one form in antiquity, another in the Middle Ages, 
anil a different one, again, in the modern times. Nevertheless, 
_ despite the .various forms and outward manifestations 
conditioned by time and circumstances, it is always the 
power of the Rock, of the Key-bearer, of the Chief Shepherd of 
the Church that is exercised. The main vital principle, the 
essential features and functions, included in the very idea of 
the Primacy and in the very nature of the Church, are always 
the same, and have been at all times recognised. To form a 
true and correct estimate of the Papal Primacy, therefore, both 
the dogmatic and the historic method must be employed. 

Without the former we lose sight of the germ and root, that 
is, of the permanent element; without the latter, we forget its 
growth and development. But both combined will enable us 
to give a true, consistent, and fuller view of the doctrine, and 
to state it in terms more clear and precise than before. None 
_ but the blind can deny that there has been real development 
both in the exercise of the primatial power and also in its 
expression by Fathers and Theologians from the early ages 
down to the Vatican Council. With this Council the develop- 
ment has, we may say, reached a relative finality. — 

2.* What is true of the Papal Primacy in general, is 
equally true of Papal Infallibility in particular. For the latter 
is but a chief function of the Primacy itself. It is, in the first 
place, the Supreme Power of deciding questions of faith and 
morals ; it is, secondly, the guarantee to the faithful that such 
decision is in absolute conformity with revealed truth, On 
the connection between the Pope’s Primacy and his Supreme 
Magisterium the Vatican Council speaks thus: ** And since by 
“the divine right of Apostolic Primacy, the Roman Pontiff is 
‘placed over the Universal Church, we further teach and 
* declare that he is the Supreme Judge of the faithful, and 


2 Schulte, System des Kirchenrechtes, >. 191. Lehrbuch des Kirchenr. 2 Ed 
Giessen 1268, p. 193. Hettinger, Fuudamental theol, 2 Ed. pe. 637- 


506 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, 


“that in all causes, the decision of which belongs to the 
“Church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, and that none 
““may re-open the judgment of the Apostolic See, than whose 
“authority there is no greater, nor can any lawfully review 
“its judgment. Wherefore they err from the right course who 
“assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the 
“Roman Pontiffs to an Oecumenical Council, or to an authority 
“higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.”2 It was in fact always 
held as self-evident that the gift of infallibility is attached to 
the supreme office of teaching in the Church. But it was less 
evident that the Pope was necessarily the Supreme Teacher, 
or, again, that, as the Primacy is a necessary postulate of the 
unity of the Church, so is Papal infallibility a necessary 
consequence of her immunity from error. It took a long time, 
and required a long process of elimination and assimilation, 
before this consequence was clearly seen by all, and was 
formally and finally declared by the Church. Nevertheless, 
the Church has all along acted upon it in times past; and she 
has acted upon it from no other reason than because she 
was conscious that such power was implied in the Petrine 
texts of Scripture. The doctrine of Papal Infallibility is 
thus both old and new; it has lived from the beginning as a 
vital germ ; it has expanded and developed in course of time, 
and according to the needs of the hour. Our simple duty, 
then, is to show that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility as 
brought to light in course of time, and as finally formulated by 
the Vatican Council, is a consiscent development, and a natural 
and necessary growth of the doctrine of Scripture and 
Tradition. Other specific powers included in the Primacy we 
may here pass over, leaving them to treatises on Canon Law, 
but the question of Papal Infallibility, because of its import- 
ance both intrinsic and extrinsic, more especially at the present 


2 Const. de Eccl. cap. 111. see Pii VI. Breve ‘Super Soliditate,’ Nov 28, 1786; 
Epis. Nicol. I. ad Mich. Imper. Hefele I. 1445 IL. 637, 639, 642, €45; LIL 
7393 1V., 239, 336, 376, 456, 529, 547) 768 


THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, 5°07 


_ day, requires a thorough dogmatic and historical examination 
at the hands of the Christian Apologist. 

3-1 Before proceeding, however, to the examination of the 
Scriptural doctrine, we deem it necessary to elucidate somewhat 
further the above mentioned connection between the Primacy 
and the Supreme power of teaching. For, it may be objected 
that the connection between the two is not self-evident The 
Primacy is a power of jurisdiction, a legislative and judicial 
power, while the power of teaching God’s revealed word would 
seem to belong to a different order. Indeed the power of 
jurisdiction is necessarily limited to what are technically called 
the suéyects of a ruler, but the teaching power of the Church 
extends to all men. Again, the power to teach is essentially 
a witnessing to what has been received and handed down; but 
the witnesses who are preordained by God and qualified for 
that office, are the bishops in virtue of their Episcopal character. 
For these and similar reasons, then, it is difficult to see, how 
the Supreme Magisterium is involved in the idea of the Primacy. 
Thesanswer to this objection may be gathered from what has 
been said previously, especially in the fifth chapter. The power 
of teaching ze¢hin the Church is decidedly a legi-lative function, 
or, an act of jurisdiction. The Church is a society whose first 
and fundamental law is the law of truth and faith; it is the 
society of the fai/h/v/, the community and body of believers ; 
whose common faith ts the first and chief bond of unity. The 
teaching of the Church, therefore, must come home to all its 
members by way of a real law,—which shall be emphatically 
the law. . The supreme authority of the Church is answerable 
for the promulgation and execution of this law; and her 
subjects are bound to obey it in both cases. ‘The case of those 
who are not yet subjects of the Church is different. For them 
the Chureh is indeed the only authorized and divinely com- 
missioned promulgator of the divne law of truth, that is, of 
revelation, and so far her preaching is an act of jurisdiction ; 
still it is not a perfect act of jurisdiction, properly so called, 


508 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPR. 


necessarily supposing their formal membership and obedience, — 
As regards the other portion of the difficulty, namely, that the 
teaching power would seem to be an actus ordinis rather than 
jurisdictionis, the answer is that it is really a complex power, 
belonging both to order and to jurisdiction. We have already 
explained (Chap. v.) that the power of order is perfectly sterile 
in the Church without the power of jurisdiction. The testimony 
of bishops deprived of jurisdiction, or independent of him in 
whom alone resides the Apostolic jurisdiction in the Church, 
fs null and void. ‘Irue, in virtue of the Episcopal character 
they are divine organs of truth, and duly accredited witnesses ; 
but only as long as they are in the Apostolic succession, in the 
unity of the body corporate, that is to say, in subjection to him 
who is the one Apostle, living for evermore. Thus the power 
of teachin’, even by way of witness, is and remains, in its 
ultimate analysis, an act of Apostolic jurisdiction. ‘This being 
so, it is evident that the power of teaching revealed truth, or of 
laying down the law of faith, is not only intimately connected 
with the Primacy, but is really its chief and highest funetion. 
And, indeed, when We come to consider the testimonies of the 
early Fathers such as Trenzeus, Cyprian, Augustine, Optatus, it 
is principally in questions of faith that we see them appeal 
to the Roman Primacy, and regard its judgment as decisive. 


fz EVIDENCE OF SCRIPTURE, 


4. The proof from Seif/ure has to be sought above all in 
the Petrine texts. In Matthew xvi. 16-19, Peter is promised 
to become the unshaken rock of the Church, to possess the 
keys of the kingdom of heaven, so as to be able to bind and 
loose both on earth and in heaven. That the Primacy, or 
supreiie power of jurisdiction, is promised in these words has 
been shown in chapter x11. But the supreme power of teach- 
ing is a necessary and chief part of that Primacy. The true 
faith is quite as much a vital condition and a fundamental law 
of the Church, as it is the root of justification in the individual 


+ 


THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, 599 


soul. Revealed truth, and a corresponding faith therein, are 
the well spring of ber very life and existence, Therefore, if by 
the words of our Lord, there is conveyed any power at all, it 
must be the power of laying down the law of truth, Again, the 
power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, as even our 
adversaries admit, certainly comprises the power of teaching, 
the céavis scientiae. Of what kind and character this teaching 
is, we learn from the same text. Peter’s binding and loosing 
on earth is said to be sanctioned and ratified in heaven ; that is 
to say, it has divine force. His power of teaching, then, is as 
firm and unshaken as a rock which is proof against all hostile 
elements of assault from without or of dissolution from within. 
There is no deadlier enemy of the Church, nor of the whole 
economy of reveaied truth, than heresy ; whence the Fathers 
often interpret the gates of hell as heresies. But to say that 
Peter’s power of teaching is as firm as a rock and sanctioned 
in heaven, is the same as saying that it is unerring cr infallible. 
This gift of inerrancy can only come to him from God. Hence 
our divine Lord, in His admirable wisdom, has so disposed of 
events that the very act of promise should be accompanied by 
a signal instance of special divine assistance vouchsafed ta 
Peter. “ Blessed art thou, Simon Bay-Jona, because /esk an! 
“dbliad hath not revealed tt to thee, but my Lather who i; in 
** heaven” (Matth. xxv. 17). 

5. The passage in S. John xxt. 15-17, likewise, implies tha 
supreme power both of teaching and of teaching infallibly. 
“Teed my lambs, feed my sheep,” is the charge given to 
Peter and his successors for ever. Now, the chief food for the 
Christian soul is divine truth, which it appropriates by ‘aith. 
Faith is the light of the mind, and that light is as necessary to 
the spiritual life of the soul as is the material light to the 
life of organic beings, | Peter, then, as chief shepherd, is 
commissioned by our Lord, in His name and place, to lead 
all that are of the flock into the green pastures of divine truth, 
and to the pure streams of divine grace. He, the good shep- 


510 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, 


herd, will keep them away from the poisonous food of heresy, 
error and falsehood. Thus, the metaphor of feeding the sheep 
and lambs is not only in itself naturally most apt to express the 
supreme magisterium, but it is, moreover, biblical in usage. 
But besides this, the very nature of the subject of which the 
words treat, requires the text to extend to the power of teaching. 
Now the power of feeding the sheep, always and at all times, 
with genuine wholesome food, is, by implication, equivalent to 
saying that it can never err The power given to Peter is 
divine, and is directly the magisterial power of Christ. How 
can that power be fallible? How can the good Shepherd be 
the wolf? Peter enjoys the privilege of divine assistance, 
because he wields a divine power. Most significant, therefore, 
in this connexion is his wonderful confession of love. The 
love now filling the heart of Peter is not that natural affection 
upon which he relied before, and which proved weak in the 
hour of trial ; it is a supernatural love, a divine gift, and there- 
fore firm as adamant, and stronger than death. The more one 
dwelis on the two texts of Matthew and John, the more is he 
sensible of the sweet and wonderful wisdom with which the 
Incarnate Word ordained the Church’s constitution. Peter 
strong in faith is promised the Primacy; Peter strong in love 
receives the Primacy. Faith destroys heresy, love destroys 
schism, Peter is the source of the unity of truth and the 
unity of love. But this double unity comes ultimately from 
one and only source, namely, the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of 
unity. That the Fathers have understood both passages, 
Matthew xvi. and John xx1., of the teaching power of Peter,* 
and that the Roman Pontiffs have ever acted upon it, is undeni- 
able. S. Leo says: “I am mindful that I preside over the 
“Church in the name of him, whose confession was praised by 
“the Lord Jesus Christ, and whose faith destroys all heresies, 
“out especially the impiety of the present error,”$ 


3 Ef. 61. 2. 
" See Allnatt, Cathedra Petri, pp. 1-39 


THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE 511 


3. There remains the special passage of S, Luke xxu. 31 32, 
in which, as we have argued above, the promise of the Primacy 
is repeated in the face of an impending trial, and this time the 
promise conveys the assurance of infallible and indefectible 
faith. ‘' 4nd the Lord said; Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath 
“‘ desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat. But 1 have 
** prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and thou being once 
‘““conuerted, confirm thy brethren. ‘The Coxacil of the Vatican 
refers to it in the following words: ‘And indeed all the tenerable 
“ Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox Doctors have 
‘““venerated and followed their Apostolic doctrine; knowing 
“most fully that this See of Holy Peter remains for ever free 
“from all blemish of error according to the divine promise of 
“the Lord our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: 
'*] have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and, when thou 
‘fart converted, confirm thy brethren.” 

It has been said that this is the only Scripture pascage on 
which Papal infallibility rests, and with which it stands and 
falls. This is not true, In the traditional view it rests quite as 
much on the text of S. Matthew and S. John as on that of 
S. Luke; and the Vatican Council bases it on all the three 
texts, as any one may see from the fourth chapter of the 
Constitutio de Ecclesia. As regards the exegesis of the passage, 
we refer the reader to our remarks in chapter xu. We have 
only to add a word concerning the terms erurrpevas (converted ) 
and tovs udeAdovs gov (thy brethren), Some have thought that 
the former word might be a hebraism, and have the meaning of 
‘vicissim (in turn, or, again) like the Hebrew verb ‘ shud,’* 
This, however, is very doubtful, as the Hebrew ‘sud’ seems 
only used in that sense when the same identical action is repeated 
by the same, or sometimes even by a different agent (Jerem. 
MVitteare ezechevilts 5. Ps. LXX. 20. 21 3 LXXxIVi-75° LV-Kings 
Retimorer cue ii. I.) Mach. xit-. 45... ChActsaxv. 367) 
The word ‘fratres’ is often used in Scripture of the ‘/a:th/ul’,§ 


4 See Schanz, Comment. in Luc. p. 517. 
5 Matth. xxiii. 8. John xxi. 23. Acts vi. 33 ix. 30, and many ether passages, 


512 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, 


but S. Paul uses it also of his fellow-labourers.® Peter, therefore, 
receives the promise that his faith will be strong by the grace 
of God—(the effect of Christ’s special prayer), and that he is to 
strengthen the faith of his fellow-labourers and fellow-believers. 
This duty of supporting the faith of his brethren is a lasting 
one, as is clear from the nature of the case, and from the 
parallelism of this passage with Matthew xv1. The attempts of 
Satan to sift as wheat those who are disciples of Christ, are not 
limited in time and place; the brethren will need strength 
at all times; the unity and solidity of faith requires care and 
safeguarding in every age. It is the peculiar work and merit of 
Christ’s prayer, passion and death, to make efficient provision 
for the Church. Therefore He built it upon the immovable 
rock, We know that our adversaries find fault with what they are 
pleased to call ‘infallibilistic logic,’ and ‘wholesale inferences.’ 
But we would venture to ask, are these inferences not obvious, 
natural, and necessary? Infallibilistic or no, is it logic? Is it 
the logic of facts? What else is development but the logic 
of events? Let us hear Dollinger. ‘The chair of Peter,” he 
says, ‘‘was to be a stronghold of truth, a fortress of faith for 
“all. For, the words and prayers of our Lord had reference 
“not only to one person and to the immediate future, nay 
“rather, they were meant to lay the foundation of an edifice, 
‘they were meant above all for the Church, and all her future 
“needs, as He foresaw them in spirit. Spanning all future 
“times with His divine eye, He prays for the unity of the 
“members of the Church, in order that this unity may be an 
“everlasting testimony of his divine mission.7 3 

7+ These words of Dollinger point out to us a further argu. 
ment from Scripture. There are two facts that stand out very _ 
clearly in the pages of Holy Writ. The first is, that Christ made 
special prayer at the last supper for the unity of the Apostles 
among themselves and among them and those that were to 


6 ICor.i. 1; 11 Cor.i. 13 ii, ra. Ephes. vi. 21. Cot,d 2. 
7 Christenthum, p. 32. See Scheeben, i. 100. 


THE INEALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, 513 


believe through their word. ‘As Thou hast sent Me into the 
“world, < also have sent them into the world. And for them 
“do I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. 
“© And not for them only dol pray, but for them also who through 
“their word shall believe in Me. ‘Vhat they all may be one, as 
“Thou, Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may 
““be one in Us: that the world may believe that Thou hast 
“sent Me.” (John xvit. 18-21). The second fact is, that this 
prayer of Christ’s is made efficacious by the sending of the 
Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth who will teach them all things 
and who will abide with them for ever. (John xiv. 16-17; 
xv. 2°. 27). The Apostles shall receive His own Spirit, and 
shall be divine witnesses to His truth until the end of time. 
(Matih. xxvii. 20). Now what else does this'mean but that 
the Apostolate is infallible in its teaching and that 1% will last 
till the consummation of the world? But the Apostleship in its 
full and proper sense survives in none but the Bishop of Rome. 
It is eve iasting in Peter, and in him alone. Hence, at the last 
supp*r, our Lord made the same prayer, first and especially, for 
Peter: ‘I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not.” Langen8 
is consequently very much mistaken, if he thinks that the prayer 
recorded by John (xvu. 18-21) finally disposes of the application 
of infallibilistic logic to the prayer in S. Luke (xxi 31. 32). 
The two prayers not only s'and well side by side, but they 
mutually complete each other. No one can fail to see this, 
except thcse who imagine that the infallibility of the Church is 
distinct and different from that of Peter. 

Our position, then, is clear. In saying that there is Scripture 
proof for the infollibility of the Pope, we do not mean that 
Papal Infallibility, by a mere process of logic, and independently 
of the historic development which finally issued into the 
definition of the Vatican Council, can be inferred from the 
texts of Scripture. This is rather the attitude which our 
opponents assume. They seem to argue that, because Papal 
infallibility is not set forth in formal and explicit terms, there is 


& Unfehlbarreit, p. 18. 


514 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 


no proof for it whatever. We maintain, on the contrary, that 


we have, in Scripture, the main and essential principle, the 
vital germ ; and that, as time went on, this gréw and expanded 
naturally and consistently; that it came more and more 
distinctly into view, and that it was apprehended and formulated 
as a speculative truth in exactly the same degree as it grew in 
practical development. Thus, our logic of reason is but the 
reflection of the logic of facts. To deny that Papal infallibilitys 
as defined by the Vatican Council, has not its germ and root 
in Scripture, is to be blind both to Scripture and historical 
Tradition, Scripture gives us a principle. The Church, 
under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, and during the progress 
of the ages, draws the conclusions, and draws them, be it 
noticed, not from one principle by itself, but from the 
comprehensive consciousness of all the principles that maké 
up the Catholic deposit. 

8. We have still to consider the Pafristic interpretation of 
the passage in S. Luke xxi, 31, 32. The I'athers are wont, 
especially in their homiletic interpretations, to seek the 
practical lessons contained in a text rather than the dogmatic 
and doctrinal which they take for granted when speaking before 
the faithful. Thus in our text they would dwell upon the 
power of prayer for preserving the faith, or, again, upon 
perseverance under temptation, or, again, upon the necessity 
of grace for believing. Ambrose is the first in whose writings 
we find the text explained with reference to Peter’s Primacy. 
He says: “Finally, Peter is placed over the Church, after 
“having been tempted by the devil, Whence our Lord 
“signified to him beforehand what it would mean when after- 
“wards He would make him Shepherd of the flock. For He 
“tells him: And thou, etc., S. Peter, therefore, was converted 
“and had been sifted as wheat so as to become, with the 
‘- Saints of God, ove bread that would serve us as food. For 
“while we read the actions of Peter, we recognize his precepts,? 


g In Ps. xliii. 41. Chrysost; Hos2i. 5 See Langen. p. 783 ii. 79. Theodor. 
De Div. Carn. (Migne, p. 1508). 


\ 


THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, 515 


“and he becomes our food for life and salvation.” Similarly 
S. Chrysostom explains that by his fall S. Peter had to learn 
how to be forgiving and merciful to cthers. For by the word 
“confirm” the Lord signified to him that he was “to con- 
“descend to the wavering, and strengthen them; that he was 
“to offer them his hand, and show them much love.” 
Theodoret also thinks that Peter’s trial was prophetical of his 
office, in as much as he was to be the colunin of support for a 
tottering world, giving strength. to the waverers. But it was 
chiefly Peter’s own successors that drew out the full Import of 
the passage. Leo the Great combines the two passages from 
_ Luke xxi. and John xx1r. io establish the position of the 
Roman bishop. ‘If anything,” he says, ‘‘is administered well 
by us, if anything is rightly ordained, it must be considered 
“the work and ruling of him to whom it was said: And thou, 
“once converted, confirm thy brethren.” ‘The danger was 
“common to all the Apostles . . . yet Christ has special 
“care of Peter; He specially prays for the faith of Peter, as 
“though the position of the others were secure, if Peter’s spirit 
‘remained unconquered. In Peter, therefore, the strength of 
“all is assured, and the assistance of divine grace is so disposed 
“that the strength which Christ imparts to Peter is through 
“bim imparted to the Apostles.” And having quoted John 
xx1.37, he adds: “ This he undoubtedly continues to do up 
“to now; the faithful Shepherd fulfils the charge of our Lord, 
“he strengthens us by his admonitions.” The Popes Gelasius 
and Gregory the Great, expiain it in like manner; Gelasius 
adding that it was in the interest of the Church that ove chair 
received pre-eminence above ail the rest.!°  Pe/agius 1. (a.D 
58c) says, that the prayer was made for the Apostolic Chair. 
Yet he is mindful, withal, of his own shortcomings, and excuses 
those of Vigilhus. AZartin1., and Vitalian, follow in the same 
track. Avatho writes: * Be mindful, therefore, that the Lord 


to Leo, Sermo iv. (iii) 25 ixxxiii (ixxxii.), 3 Gelas., Ep. v.14. Pelag., Ep. ve 
4 Bossuet, De Surnme Pontificis Auctor. C Jo 


516 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 


‘who promised that Peter’s faith should not fail, exhorted 
‘him to confirm his brethren, and this, as is acknowledged 
“on all sides, my predecessors have always done.’’ So 
unanimous is the consent of the Fathers upon the interpre- 
_ tation of this passage that even Bossuet drew from it his 
proof for the unchangeable faith of the Roman See. 

9.t Cardinal Manning thus sums up the evidence: ‘* The 
“application of the promise Ago rogavi pro te, etc., to the 
‘infallible faith of Peter and his successors, is made by S. 
‘* Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Leo, S. Gelasius, Pelagius II., 
‘S$. Gregory the Great, Stephen, Bishop of Dori, in a Lat- 
“eran Council, S. Vitalian, the Bishops of the IV Oecu- 
““menical Council, A.D. 481, S. Agatho in the VI‘ A.D. 
“680, S. Bernard A.D. 1153, S. Thomas Aquinas A.D. 1274, 
‘S. Bonaventure A.D. 1274: that is, this interpretation is 
‘‘ given by three out of four Doctors of the Church, by six 
‘‘ Pontiffs down to the seventh century. It was recognized 
“in two Oecumenical Councils. It is explicitly declared 
‘ by the Angelic Doctor, who may be taken as the exponent 
‘of the Dominican School, and by the Seraphic Doctor, | 
‘‘ who is likewise the witness of the Franciscan ; and by a 
“multitude of Saints. This catena, if continued to later 
“times, might, as all know, be indefinitely prolonged.’’* 


fl, EVIDENCE OF TRADITION IN THE FIRST SEVEN CENTURIES. 


10, From the texts quoted in the preceding chapters 
we are already sufficiently familiar with the traditional 
view generally taken of the Roman Church, As the 
Apostolic See and the chair of Peter she holds a pre-emi- 
nent position in all questions of importance to the uni- 
versal Church, and especially in controversies of faith. 
Rome took the lead, as is clear from the history of the 
heresies of the second and third centuries. No other Bish- 
op dealt with heretics, no matter from which quarter they 
came, as the Roman Bishop dealt with them and they with 


* The Vatican Council and its Definitions. A Pastoral Letter to the Clergy. Lon- 
don, 1870, pp. 80-84. 


THE ‘tNFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, S17 


him. Sut in the present chapter we have still to enquire, in a 
special manner, how this ancient and general tradition bears 
upon our particular question of Papal infallibility as defined by 
the Vatican Council. That Papal infallibility was de facto 
assumed by the Popes and practically acted upon in the Church, 
is unmistakable from many examples and testimonies, especially 
from the words of Lea the Great! Nevertheless, the formad 
proof of the dogma as defined by the Council is not without 
some difficulty. Two faults have to be equally avoided: to 
exaggerate the historical evidence, and to underrate it. For 
this purpose it is absolutely necessary to kee) steadily in view 
the precise state of the question. The remarks which we have 
made concerning the evidence from Scripture, equally apply in 
their measure to the evidence from Tradition. The dogma 
itself is substantially as old as the Church ; for it is a div.ne 
prerogative conferred by Christ at the foundation thereof. But 
in form and aspect it is also new, like other articles of faith ; 
for this divine prerogative was given to men to do a work in 
the world and in time, and according to tne needs of each 
epoch ; hence it came to light gradually, it grew and expanded ; 
it came to be seen in its relation to other factors and elements 
in the organism of the Church; it gained, as time went on, in 
clearness, distinctness, and strength, until at last it took its true 
and natural place among the explicit articles of the Cataolic 
faith. There are those who speak and argue, at times, as if 
Papal infallibility had been taught as clearly and distinctly in 
the third century as in the nineteenth. ‘hey surely overstate 
the facts of history, and forget the law of development in 
Christian dogma. There are others who look upon the Vatican 
definition as a triumph of dogma over history. But these 
underrate the facts, and exaggerate the functions of history. 
The Catholic Apologist steers, as is proper, a middle course. 
The Church is both divine and human; it is dogmatic and 
historical. - The Vatican definition is both a triumph of 


sx EZ. Civ, 1 5 CXX. Xe 


518 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 


dogma, and of history. We cannot do better here than 
quote the words of Cardinal Manning on this subject.4@ He 
says: “ Men, too hot headed to be candid or too light headed 
“to be accurate, have called this the triumph ef dogma over 
“history. Some have even said, with less honour, that to 
“appeal to history is here denounced as heresy. Not so fast. 
“To appeal from a human teacher to human history is no 
“heresy; but to appeal from a Divine Teacher to any other 
“tribunal is Aso facto heresy. This clause, however, is always 
“carefully suppressed. The objectors conceal the fact that 
“they do not believe in any divine authority. They therefore, 
“in contradicting their Church and all its teachers, commit 
“neither treason nor heresy. Where there is no supreme 
“authority, there is no treason; and where there is no divine 
“teacher, there is no heresy.” 

“The triumph of dogma over history, therefore, really means 
“this: the Church defines its doctrines in spite of you, because 
*‘it knows its history better than you. Its dogmas include its 
“history, and its history is part, of its consciousness, sustained 
**by divine assistance. If you would deny the conclusion, you 
“must deny the premises; that is, the Divine assistance which 
‘perpetuates the faith.” 

“‘ History does not mean only books, manuscripts, documents 
*“‘and scientific historians. It means also the moral personality 
“of Empires and Kingdoms: the living and ever accumulating 
“tradition of human action and human knowledge embodied 
““in usages, customs, laws, institutions All these are witnesses, 
“and testify \ ith articulate voice. The history of the Church 
“is the Church itself; its world-wide circumference guarded by 
“the universal Episcopate, and its centre the fountain of sup- 
*freme authority; its unbroken succession of Bishops in all 
“nations ; its lineal inheritance of the Primacy of the chief 
“of the Apostles; its nineteen GEcumenical Councils: all these 
“things are history, historical documents, testimonies, records 


a2 Religio Viatoris, pp. 78-8 


THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, 519 


and living witnesses. To quote human and uninspired texts 
“against the voice and witness of the universal Church, is 
“nv sign of common sense. ‘The scientific historian reads the 
“history of the Catholic Church in one sense, the Catholic 
“ Church reads its own history in another, Choose which you 
‘will believe. For me it is enough to say in matter of its 
“history what St. Augustine said in matters of faih. Secusus 
“Gudicat orbis terrarum,” 

“ When our Lord said to Peter, ‘Satan hath desired to have 
‘you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, 
‘that thy faith fail not ; and thou being once converted, confirm 
“thy brethren,’ * He foretold that there should be for evera 
‘‘ warfare against the faith. When He said, “the gates of Hell 
“shall not prevail,” He implied, that they should be in 
“ perpetual assault.” 

“Nevertheless there has been an unbroken tradition of 
“immutable faith, resting on the promise of divine assistance.” 

“In this doctrine also there have been three periods of 
* discussion, and analysis, and definition as to the mode of 
“ conceiving and expressing the truth about which in itself there 
“was no doubt.” 

“yy The first, Was a period of a simple unquestioning 
“belief that the successor of Peter had by divine promise a 
“ special stability in faith.” 

“62, The second, a period of analysis and of controversy 
‘provoked by the great western schism out of which came 
“ Gallicanism within the Church and Anglicanism out of it.” 

“©3. The third, a period of definition in which the simple 
“faith of tie first period was defined with the precision of 
“thought and of words that the analysis of con.roversy had 
“ attained.” 

“At the time of the Vatican Council the world achieved a 
‘‘oreat victory. It prejudiced the minds even of good men, 
“it blinded their eyes and it made their ears deaf, They 


* St. Luke xxii, 31, 32 


520 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 
\ 


“would not listen, therefore they could not believe. And 
‘‘ they would not listen because they had no will to be con- 
‘“vinced and a wish rather not to be convinced ; but this 
‘will not besoforever. Atand after the Council of Niczea 
‘“many died in the belief that the world had been divided 
‘without need, and tormented for an iota. But we now 
“can see that the iota has saved the faith of the world, 
‘“ We see also that the whole Zeclesia Docens, the universal 
‘‘ Episcopate represented by 700 of its members united to 
“their head, less only perhaps three, bore witness to the 
“infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. About forty thought 
‘‘it inopportune to define the doctrine: but they all alike 
“submitted when it was defined, and the bishops who were 
‘“not present sent their adhesion.”’ 

‘This world-wide unanimity is the past living in the 
‘present, the history of the faith written on the living and 
“lineal intelligence of the Church: a living scripture of 
“ithe spirit. off hruthae 

There is, then, historic evidence, sufficient from the be- 
ginning, and increasing with time, for the dogma of Papal 
infallibility. The Magisterium of the Church, as the living 
organ not of revelation, but of tradition, could not define 
a doctrine without historic evidence. Such inconsistency 
is impossible. But then the Church herself is at once the 
best, and the most authentic witness to her own history. 

m1. There is yet another remark with which we 
must preface our examination of the historic evidence 
for Papal infallibility. The early Fathers are accustomed 
to speak of the Roman Church rather than the Roman 
Bishop. Her faith is known and praised everywhere. Her 
faith is the rule for all the churches. With this Church 
all others must agree. This Church holds authority and 
principality. Sze presides in the covenant of love. She 
has the one chair of truth, to which no treachery of 
faith can have access, With her begins the unity of the 
priesthood. But it is clear that statements, like these, sup- 
pose that the cause and reason of the Roman Primacy is 


THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, §21L 


known from the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John. The 
words of the Fathers must be viewed in the light of the New 
Testament, in conjunction with the Petrine texts of Scripture, 
and with the whole organization of the Church. The reason of 
the superiority of the Roman communion or congregation lies 
in the superiority of her See, her Chair, her Episcopal 
Succession, in the fact that it is the See and Chair of Peter. 
Jrenzus Clearly states the reason why the Roman Church 
preserves the Apostotic Traditions as she does ; it is on account 
of the succession of her bishops.® Again Cyprian rebukes the 
heretics, because they ventured to send representatives to Rome 
to the Chair of Peter to carry letters from schismatics and 
profane (outsiders), forgetting ihat it is the Romans whose faith 
was praised by the Apostle and to whom no false faith 
(perfidia) has access. For there is but one Church, one Chair 
erected by tue word of the Lord upon Peter. Whoever does 
not hold fast to this unity, how can he expect to keep the true 
faith? Ambrose exshoris the Emperor to call upon the head of 
the whole Roman world, namely, the Roman Church, that it 
should not allow the Apostolic tradition to be impaired ; for 
from thence (Rome) flow the rights of the venerable com- 
munity (Church) jupon all. Jerome asks; “ Which faith does 
“hecali his? Is it the faith of which Rome is full? If so, 
“then we are both Catholics.” “ Remember, we have nothing 
‘so much at heart as to preserve the rights of Christ, and not 
‘to transgress the limits traced by our fathers, and to be ever 
‘ mindful of the Roman faith which was already praised by the 
“mouth of the Apostle.” If to this we join his words 
addressed to Pope Damasus already quoted, we gather that 
the Roman Church is the sure and unfailing seat of truth, 
because her Bishop is the successor of Peter, In his letter to 
Demetrias he praises Pope Anastasius as a man of truly 
Apostolic poverty and zeal, who has crushed the head of the 


13. Ady. Haer itt. 3,2. Cypr. Ep. lix. 145 xliit. §. De Unit. c 4. Ambr., EA. xis 
@ Hieron, dav. Rufii. 4. Ep. Ixiii. Ch Zp. xv., £, 4. Ad Demetr. cxxx 


§22 THE INFALLIBILITY OF IHE POPE, 


dragon (heresy) and shut up the mouth of the hissing serpent. 
‘lence he exhorts her “to hold fast to the faith of Pope 
“Innocent who succeeds Anastasius in the Apostolic Chair.” 
12, S. Augustine, too, repeatedly gives expression to his 
inmost conviction that the true faith is always found in the 
Roman Church, and is never found outside her. For, “in this 
“chair of unity God has deposited the doctrine of truth.” 
“Thou couldst not hope to hold the true faith of the Catholic 
“Church, unless thou didst teach that the Roman faith is to be 
kept.” Nor must we think that he gives the palm to Rome 
only in quest.ons of explicit and universally taught doctrines 
of faith. For when the ez questions* of faith arose, concern- 
ing grace, he forwarded his trea:ises against the epistles of the 
Pclogians to His Holincss in Rome in order that, whatever was 
wrong or displeasing, might be corrected there. And when 
Innocent IJ., a.p. 417 had sent his final answer to the African 
bishops, Augustine says: **Two councils have now been sent 
“to the Apostolic See, and Rescripts have come back from 
“there. ‘The matter is ended. Would God the error ended 
“also.” Again in h‘s work on the utility of belief he Says : 
“Not to yield to the authority of the Apostolic See, is a sign 
“either of the highest impiety, or, of froward arrogance.” f 
“Christians are not aliowed to Coubt of the word of Zosimus 
“the Sovereign Pontiff.” These and similar statements of the 
African Doctor are equivalent to a profession of Papal 
infallibility, Furthermore, by his general doctrine that the 
validity of the Sacraments is independent: of the personal 
character of the dispenser, he has supplied us with the principle 
of distinguishing between the personal faith and the official 
infallibility of the Pope as the authentic witness at: ] interpreter 
of Tradition.!* 
14 Sermo cxx, (Mai, Nov. Bibl. i. 273), Ep. exciv., 13 cv. 16. Sermo exxxi. 10. 
Ep. exc. 6, 23. lili. 1, 3. 
® Nova quaedam haeresis inimica gratiae Christi contra Ecclesiam Christi conatur 
exurgere; sed nondum evidenter ad Leclesia sefaiata, Ep. 178 ad Hilar, 


Ep. n. 1. 
4 De Util. Cred ce xvii. n. 35. 


THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, 523 


13.* The Greck Church, likewise, from the beginning, looked 
upon Rome as the immovable centre of the Catholic faith.  S. 
Tenatius, in tracing what we may call the diocesan principle of 
faith, has also traced the principle of faith for the Church at 
large. According to him the faithful-must remain in the teach- 
ing of the Bishop [v2 sententia Eipscopi|, because he remains in 
the teaching of the Apostles, and they in that of Christ, and 
He in that of the Father. Here we have a divine law, and a 
divine organism. This law must equally apply to the Church 
at large; and the more so, as the Saint not only speaks in the 
highest terms of the Roman Church, but calls her the presedent 
of [the covenant of] ove, an expression which spontaneously 
recails to our mind the scene on the lake: ‘“ Simon, lovest thou 
“me more than these . . feed my sheep.” The principle 
of Ignatius cannot be gainsaid. The bishops must remain in 
sententia Apostolorum, But how can that be tested in the case 
of bishops who are not placed over their churches by the 
Apostles themselves, but only by their disciples? Of course, 
the Apostolic Bishops are in sententia Afpostolorum , but, who 
are they? Is it Arius, Apollinaris, Nestorius? The test is 
Rome, the ever living Apostolic See of Peter. This is the 
meaning of mpoxaOnpévn THs aydrns. S. Clement of Rome, in 
his epistle #@ the Corinthians, speaks and acts as one who is 
conscious that together with his episcopate the universal care of 
churches has devolved upon him. It is his duty and office to 
repair whatever loss there may be in the faith and Apostolic 
tradition of particular churches. In whatever way we view the 
words and action of Clement, there is only one satisfactory 
conclusion possible, namely, that the Roman See was the 
centre of unity, the remedy against heresy and schism. This 
is the view that Irenzus took of it. ‘In the time of this 
“Clement, no small discussion having occurred among the 
“brethren at Corinth, the Church of Rome despatched a most 
“ powerful letter ?ixavwrarnv padiv) to the Corinthians, exkort- 
“ing them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the 


524 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 


‘tradition which it had lately received from the Apos- 
“tles . .’’* Hence Eusebius calls it a great and admirable 


letter, and both he and Dionysius testify that it was pub- @ 


licly read in the churches.* This is scanty evidence, we 
grant. But before the end of the second century we come 
to a witness, at once Greek and Latin, whose testimony 
stands out as a bright constellation illuminating the pre- 
ceding as well as the following ages. We mean /rencus. 
Here is his one, absolute, universal test of orthodoxy : 
‘’ But as it would be too long to enumerate in this volume 
‘ the succession of all the churches, we yet put to confu- 
‘sion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an 
" evil self-pleasing, by vain glory, or by blindness and per- 
_““ verse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings, [we do 
‘this I say] by pointing to that tradition which the great- | 
“est and most ancient, and universally known Church 
‘' founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious 
‘‘ Apostles Peter and Paul, has derived from the Apostles, 
‘and [by pointing to] that faith which was announced to 
“all men, and has come down to us by means of the suc- 
‘cession of the bishops. For with this Church, on account 
‘of its pre-eminent authority, it is necessary that every 
“Church, that is, the faithful everywhere, should agree 
‘‘ (convenire) ; for in [communion with] her have thé faith- 
‘ful, that are everywhere, preserved that tradition which 
‘is from the Apostles.””** The true faith has to be sought 
at Rome ; and it can always be found in the Roman Church. 
But this means that the true faith is taught by the Roman ~ 
Bishop, because the Apostolic tradition, in the words of _ 
Irenzeus, comes down to us by the succession of her bish- 
ops. ‘* Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters 
‘’ who are in the Church—those who, as I have shewn, pos- 
“sess the succession from the Apostles ; those who, to- 
“gether with the succession of the Episcopate, have re- 
‘ceived the certain gift of truth, according to the good 


* Adv. faer. III. 3. (Clark’s Tr.). 
* Euseb. H. £. iii. 3. iv. 24. 
* Adv. Haer. Il. c. 2. 


THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 525 


‘pleasure of the Father ; but to hold in suspicion others 
‘‘who depart from the primitive succession, and assem- 
‘‘ble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either 
‘‘as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed 
‘‘up and self-pleasing. . .’’* The Roman Bishop, then, 
has the certain ‘ charisma veritatis,’ as also the certain suc- 
cession from the Apostles. In the faith and doctrine of 
the Apostolic See, so Irenzeus tells us, there can be no 
error. Hence it is the one universal test of orthodoxy. 
The Vatican Council has said no more than Irenzus, as 
far as the substance goes. The Bishop of Rome, when de- 
fining a doctrine of faith and morals, has the ‘ charisma in- 
fallibilitatis.’ It would be interesting to know whether 
those who reject the doctrine of the Vatican Council, are 
prepared to admit those clear and precise statements of 
Irenzeus ? 

14. Not less distinct is the testimony of the Greek Fa- 
thers of the fourth century. Zpiphanius says: “‘ The Fa- 
‘ther has revealed to him (Peter) His true Son and (the 
‘““Son) bestowed praise on him on this account ; but the 
‘revelation of Holy Ghost He (the Son) reserved to Him- 
‘self. This was becoming for the first Apostle, the Rock 
“upon which the Church is built, and against which the 
‘“gates of hell cannot prevail. By the gates of hell must 
‘be understood the heresies and heresiarchs. It was a 
‘most wise disposition that the faith of him who has re- 
‘ceived the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and who bind- 
‘ oth and looseth on earth and in heaven, should be made 
‘sure, In him we may find represented all the subtle 
“ ** questions of our faith.”’® Clearly this Father assumes 
the fact that Peter is still living, and that his faith is abso- 
lutely secure, when he acts in his capacity as rock and key- 
bearer, that is, as universal Teacher of the faithful. 

Gregory of Naszianzum speaks thus of Rome: “‘ As regards 
‘‘her faith, Old Rome pursues the right path from the 


15 Ancor. C. 


“SIDE Tes Taig Le Ee 


526 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, 


“beginning till now, and she maintains the whole East in the 
“truth of salvation ; and it is meet that she who is president 
‘““of the whole world, should religiously maintain the harmony 
‘fin the Church of God.”*  Zyheodoret, in his letter to the 
Roman Presbyter Renatus, expresses himself in less chosen 
terms, but with equal force: “For that holy chair has the 
“primacy (hegemony) over the churches of the world, for 
“many reasons, but especially because it has remained 
“free from every foul odour of heresy, and no one has sat in it 
‘“who taught opposite doctrine. Whatever is decided by you 
“we shall accept, no matter what it may be, because we trust 
“in your judgment.” In substance, then, these Fathers teach 
and assume as universally believed, first, that the Roman bishop, 
in his official capacity, cannot lead the faithful into error, 
secondly, that all churches and bishops have to abide by his 
doctrinal judgments; thirdly, that his prerogative belongs to 
him as successor of S, Peter, and is, therefore, the effect of a 
special divine assistance. S. L£hrem puts it admirably. 
Peter, he says, is a second Josu>, who is assisted by his 
brethren in the building up of the Church, and who gives 
testimony for the brethren and the whole world. Again he 
says, we have the salt of the earth that can never lose its 
savour; the sun that is ever rising and never sets; that 
illuminates all that sit in darkness; the lamp that ever burns 
without being fed anew. “ Zhe light ts Christ, the lamp 1s 
“ Peter, the otl ts the assistance of the Holy Ghost.” t 

At the fourth Lateran Council, a.p. 649, Bishop Stephen of 
Doort tlius spoke: ‘On account of the Primacy of the Roman 
“Church Archbishop Sophronius of Jerusalem sent me to Rome, 
“in order to report about and obtain t! e condemnation of the 
“errors of those men (Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus, and Sergius). 


* Greger. Naz., De Vita, v. 562-672. The last words of the quotation are difficult to 
translate. The Greek runs thus: Kaus OlKatov THY a pocdpov TOV’ 
CAwy—oAnv céBovrav THY Oeod cuapwviay, 

¢t Theodoz. 4%. cxvi. Epbrem., Encont. in Petr. 


THE INFAULIBILITY OF THE POPE, §27 


‘He obliged me by solemn oath on Mount Calvary to do this, 
“and I have faithfully carried out his orders, To-day I appear 
“for the third time before the Apostolic See to ask that those 
“errors may be refuted. . . God raised anew Pope Martin, 
“who has called together this synod for the preservation of the 
“ dogmas.”!6 And Maximus, Abbot of Chrysopolis, says: 
“All the countries of the earth . . keep now their eyes 
« steadily fixed upon the most holy Roman Church, upon her 
“confession and faith, as upon the sun of eternal light, 
“expecting that from her will break forth the resplendent light 
of the doctrine of the Fathers and Saints, laid down in the 
“ six divine, holy and God-enlightened Councils.” 

15, But the great witnesses to the rights and privileges of 
the Apostolic See are the Pofes themselves. The saying that 
no one is judge in his own cause does not apply here. A 
prophet knows best what a prophet is; and in like manner the 
Pope, or bishop, or priest understands best his own dignity, 
which God has conferred upon him. Bossuet justly remarks 
that God, in placing a man in a high position, inspires him at 
the same time with a true knowledge and appreciation of it. 
Moreover, the testimony of the Popes in our present case is all 
the less suspect, as it is borne out and confirmed by other inde- 
pendent testimonies, and because the claims of the Popes were 
then universally admitted. Now it is certain that the Popes 
have invariably claimed the right of infallibly deciding 
questions of faith, They have acted in accordance with this 
claim, and, as history tells us, Rome has ever been on the right 
side whether its utterances preceded or followed those of 
Councils. On this point we cannot do better than ref the 
rea’ or to Hagemann’s work, Zhe Roman Church, while we 
confine ourselves to those formal testimonies in which this 
privilege is either asserted with more or less of explicitness or 
necessarily implied. 

Pope Julius Z. (A.D. 337-352), in his above-mentioned letter 


16 Mansi, x. 891. Hetete, iii. 216, 


528 THE INFALLIBILILY OF THE POPE. 


to the Eusebians, says: “ Are you ignorant that this has been 


“the custom of the Church, that, first of all, letters should be 
“sent to us, that thus what is just may be decreed from this 
“place? If, therefore, any suspicion fell upon a bishop, it 
“would be right to apply to this Church. But now they who 
‘informed us not, but left us ignorant of the course of events, 
“make themseives supporters of the Suspicious views. Such 
“were not the ordinances of S. Paul, nor was it so handed 
‘down to us by the Fathers. This isa form altogether stranve, 
“and a new institution.” » Again he says: “What we have 
“received from blessed Peter that I declare unto you; nor 
“should I now write to you, except that those events have 
“caused us anxiety, because I believe that it is already known 
“to all.”17 Thus, in the middle of the fourth century and 
amidst the turmoil of the Arian controversy, the Pope appeals 
to the we/-hknuown custom of the Church, according to which 
questions and doubts concerning orthodoxy were to be referred 
to him, and declares that he would give to all what he had 
received from Peter. Asa matter of course, the judgment of 
Peter was admitted to be final and infallible. In the same way 
fnnocent I, (A.D. 417) praises the Africans, because, in cases of 
doubt, they addressed themselves to the Roman chair. 
“Quoties fidei ratio ventilatur, arbitror omnes fratres et 
“coepiscopos nostros nonnisi ad Petrum, idest sui nominis et 
“honoris auctorem referre debere.? 18 Sjxtus LtL. (Do Asa 
writes to John, Patriarch of Antioch: “You have learnt from 
“the issue of this matter what it means to be of one mind 
“with us. The holy Apostle Peter has committed what he 
“had received to his successors. And who is there that would 
“separate himself from his doctrine whom the Master Himself 
“had taught as the first of all the Apostles?” And to Cyri! 
of Alexandria ke writes (a.p. 432): “Thus the Roman Church 
17 Epist. Jul. P. ad Euseb. n. 22 (Coustant, p. 386). In Athanasii. Afologia e 


Arian. c. 21-35. See also the remarks of Socrates, Z/ist. Ecct. ii. c. 17, and of 
Sozomenes, //. £, iii. c. 10 on this letter of Julius. 


18 Epist. xxx. c. 2 (Coustant p, 896). 


——y 


THE INFALLIBILILTY OF THE POPE. 529 


“preserves unanimity as in the institution of the preacher—so 
‘also in the preaching of the faith.” 

Leo the Great expresses the infallibility of the Roman See in 
equivalent terms, inasmuch as he claims for it indefectible 
stability of faith. ‘The firmness of that faith which was 
“praised in the Prince of the Apostles is an everlasting one ; 
“and just as that which Peter confessed is lasting, so also that 
© which Christ has instituted in Peter.” ‘‘ Because that solidity 
“ which Peter himself, when constituted the rock, received from 
“Christ, the principal Rock, has passed onward also to his 
“heirs and successors.” The Roman faith, according to S. 
Leo, remains firm, certain, pure, unpolluted by error or heresy. 
It is always the faith and teaching of Peter the Apostle, to 
whom this indefectibility of faith was given by the prayer and 
power of Christ. Peter Chrysologus, in his letter to Eutyches, 
declares that without the consent of the Roman Bishop no 
questions of faith can be decided. What else does this mean, 
but that all decisions are uncertain, until the Chair of Peter 
has given its judgment? Again, how cicar and bold is the 
challenge of Fedix JZ. (A.D. 483), when he writes to the 
Emperor Zeno entreating him not to rend the seamless garment 
of our Lord, spared even by the soldiery. “Is it not,” he 
says, ‘my faith which the Lord Himself has designated as the 
“only true faith, and which cannot be conquered by any 
“opposition , for to the Church founded upon my Chair the 
‘promise was given that the gates of hell should not prevau 
‘against her?” Ge/asius holds that is it absolutely impossibre 
for him to lead people into error, “ because the glorious con- 
“fession of the Apostie is the root of pure faith, therefore the 
* Apostolic See must place its chief care in this that it be not 
“stained by any kind of wickedness or contagion. For should 
“such a thing happen, which may God avert, and which we, 
“indeed, confidently predict impossible, what furiher error 
“ could we resist, and with what right could we demand convic- 


= 


530 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, 


“tion of others.”!® The teaching of the Roman See, according 
to this Pope, is simply without spot or wrinkle or any such like 
thing. 

16. In the next century we have the celebrated profession 
of faith of Pope Hormisdas (A.D. 516) which was subscribed 
by 2,500 bishops, and acceptance of which was made a condi- 
tion of admission to the VIIIth General Council. “« Thou art 
“Peter, etc. . These words are confirmed by their effects ; 
“for in the Apostolic See religion has been always preserved 
“without spot. . . following in all things the Apostolic See, 
“and professing all its decrees, Y hope to be worthy to be in that 
“one communion with you which the Apostolic See enjoins, in 
“which is the perfect and true solidity of the Christian 
“religion.” 29 Two points are urged in this profession of 
faith. First, the historical fact that religion, for the last five 
hundred years, has been kept inviolate in the Roman See; in 
other words, the teaching of the Roman Chair has been so far 
de facto infallible. Secondly, the cause and reason of this fact 
is said to lie in the promise made by our Lord to Peter ; in 
other words, the teaching of the Roman See, being that of 
Peter, cannot be otherwise than infallible. Thus Papal infalli- 
bility, in matters of faith, is clearly proclaimed not only as a 
patent historical fact, but also as admittedly a dogmatic 
necessity. The fact that in the great controversies on points 
of faith, Rome was invariably on the right side, must needs be 
granted by those Protestants who still believe in the main 
doctrines of Christianity. But it is equally clear that the fact 
must be accounted for in some way or other. The choice lies 
between accident and necessity. With one voice antiquity has 
decided for the latter alternative, ever repeating the words. of 
Christ: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my 
“Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” 
This certainly, it must be confessed, accounts for the unique 


19 Eg. xvi. 27; xlii. x. 


20 Hefele ii. 673. See also 694; Iws 388. Card. Manning, The Cocume. Couscél, 
etc., p. 86. 


THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, 6% 


fact in a way that will satisfy the natural as well as the Christian 
mind, In the following century, again, this same appeal to 
history and doctrine is repeated wth unabated vigour by Pope 
Agutho (A.D. 678-682). In his letter to Constantine Pogonatus 
occurs the following passage:— 

‘“‘ The true rule of faith is that which the Apostolic Church, 
‘in good and evil fortune, has decreed and is defending ; she 
‘is the spiritual mother of our peaceful empire, the Apostolic 
“Church of Christ, of which, owing to the grace of God 
** Almighty, it will never be proved that she has deviated from 
‘the path of Apostolic tradition, or that she has been depraved 
‘by heretical innovations, and has yielded thereto, but as she 
‘received the faith in the beginning of Christianity from her 
“authors, the Chief Apostles of Christ, so she preserves it 
‘inviolate till the end, according to the promise made in the 
‘Sacred Gospels to the Prince of His disciples: Peter, Peter, 
““behold Satan, etc.”* These words embody the whole 
substance, and express by name the very elements, of the 
Vatican definition, namely, the subject, object, and cause of 
infallibility. 

The subject is the Roman See, or, the Bishop of Rome; 
the object is whatever is matter of faith and Apostolic 
tradition; the cause is the grace of God, or, the special divine 
assistance of the Holy Ghost. The condition of infallibility is 
implied, namely, that the Pope must be acting as Supreme 
Teacher of the Church. We may add, moreover, a remark of 
Bishop Hefele upon this letter: ‘‘Three points,” he says, “are 
“specially noticeable: (1) the confidence and clearness with 
““wh ch Agatho declares the orthodox doctrine; (2) the zeal 
“with which he repeatedly expresses the infallibility of the 


* “Quae [Ecclesia Romana] per Dei Omnipotentis gratiam a tramite Apostolicae 
“‘traditionis nunquam errasse probabitur, nec haereticis novitatibus depravata 
**succubuit, sed ut ab exordio Christianae fidei percepit ab auctoribus suis 
**Apostolorum Christi Principibus illibata fine tenus permanet, secundum 
“ipsius Domini Salvatoris divinam pollicitationem, quam suorum discipulorum 
* Principi in sacris Evangeliis fecit: Petre, Petre, inquiens, etc., (Luke 
St xxi. 31) 32) 


532 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, 


“Roman Church ; (3) the emphatic assurance that all his pre- 


* decessors had held fast to the orthodox doctrine ands had — 


“given right directions to the Patriarchs of Constantinople. 
“Hence, Agatho was far from thinking Honorius guilty of heresy, 
“and the opinion that he consented by anticipation to his 
“ condemnation, is entirely contradicted by this letter.”#1 
Under the same Pope a Roman Synod was held, attended 
by 125 Western bishops who were unable to attend the VI. 
General Council (a.p. 680). In a letter addressed to the 
Emperor they express a hope that by his exertions “ the light of 
“our Catholic and Apostolic faith may shine in the whole 
“world ; that light which, emenating from the source of light, 
“has been preserved by the Chief Apostles, Peter and Paul, 


“by their disciples and Apostolic successors down to the 


‘present Pope, and which had never been obscured by the 
‘hideous darkness of heretical error.” . . .% 

The quotations we have given, to which many others might 
have been added, are more than sufficient to establish the fect 
that the Roman See claimed in theory and practice the right of 
teaching infallibly and deciding infallibly in matters of faith, 
and that this claim was universally admitted from the fourth to 
the seventh century. ; 

17. But it is urged, the Popes generally decided questions 
of faith not by themselves, but in Synod; and _ therefore 
the infallibility, so far as it was ascribed to the Roman See, 
was at least dependent on, and.conditioned by, synodal action. 
To this ebjection we reply, first, that there is no proof to show 
that all Papal decisions in matters of faith were given in Synod ; 
on the contrary, from the Epistles of the Popes quite the 
opposite conclusion may be gathered. Augustine, certainly, 
did not think that Synods were either necessary, or were, as a 
matter of fact, always held. _—_Ie says: ‘“‘ Or, indeed, was there 
“any need of the assembling of a Synod to condemn this open 


21 Hefele iii. 257. 
22 Mansi, xi. 286. Hefele, iii. 257. 


THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, 533 


“pest, as if no heresy could at any time be condemned except 
“by the Synoda! meeting; when, on the contrary, very few 
“heresies can be found for the sake of condemning which any 
“ such necessity could have arisen.”*? For this reason Leo the 
Great was averse, at first, to a General Council, because he 
thought the question, as to the two natures in Christ, sufficiently 
decided. In the second place, no Roman Synod attributed 
infallibility to itself, but traced it to the Apostolic Succession, 
that is, to him who sat in the Chair of Peter. Even the General 
Councils, as those of Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople, 
Nicaea simply accepted the judgment of the Pope as the voice 
of S. Peter.24 ‘Thirdly, the authors and leaders of heresy, as 
well as the defenders of the faith, appealed to the Pope in 
person, not to a Roman Synod. 

18* What use, then, it may be asked, is there at all in 
Synods and General Councils? Is not the fact of their exist- 
ence a clear proof against the personal infallibility of the Pope, 
although it be considered only as a prerogative of his office ? 
Would not the history of the Churcnu bea different one had 
there been the slightest suspicion in the early ages that the 
Bishop of Rome is by himself a source of infallible truth P 
(Hase). 

Those who ask these questions clearly show that they do 
not understand the nature and function of the Apostolic 
Magisterium, whether exercised by the Pope or by a General 
Council. The questions might, perlaps, have meaning, or 
point, on the hypothesis that the Magisterium of the Church is 
an organ of revelation instead of tradition, or, again, that 
infallibility is a charisma vevelationis, and not a charisma 
assistentia divine. We say perhaps, because even then it would 
not follow that Councils are useless. For, the Apostles enjoyed 
most certainly personal infallibility, and were organs of 
revelation, as well as tradition ; yet they held a Council con- 


23 Contra Duas Efist. Pelag. iv. 12, 34. Leo, Ep XXXVile 
24 Hefele, iii. 263. 285. 462. 4835 iv. 385. 423- 


534 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 


cerning a point of faith and discipline. But as a matter of tact 
the Popes and General Councils are not organs of revelation. 
Their infallible judgments ard decisions are not sudden flashes 
of the mind, nor simple expressions of sovereign and arbitrary 
will. An ex cathedr decision is not ex tempore decision. The 
Apostolic Magisterium is essentially an organ of ¢vadition. The 
Pope, and the bishops in union with him, and sharing in his 
Apo ‘tolic jurisdiction, are in the first instance Auman witnesses 
to what is contained in the Apostolic deposit as committed to 
the Church and handed down to them by tradition, They are, 
consequently, obliged te search and inquire, to infer and gather 
from tradition, present and past, what does and what does not 
belong to the Apostolic deposit. This in itself is a historical 
and human process of witnessing to the past. But in this 
process they are so assisted by the Divine Spirit that they can 
only arrive at an infallibly certain definite conclusion. The 
Luman certa nty of their testimony is rendered absolute and 
divine by God’s special assistance, but, in no wise, can the 
human testimony be dispensed with. _ Assistance implies some- 
thing that is assisted. This is the human testimony based upon 
positive, historical, and humanly-verifiable data from Scripture 
and Tradition. Now it is perfectly plain tata General Counc! 
of those who are the appointed witnesses in the Caurch, will 
both facilitate and help to bring out, in its fullest force, the. 
human testimony of the Apostolic Magisterium. A conciliary 
definition has thus a moral force of its own, and greater than 
that of a Papai definition wherein the human testimony does 
not shine out with the same lustre, though, in point of divine 
certainty arising from the divine assistance both definitions 
are absolutely alike. Both are divine testimonies, Moreover, 
in the definition of a Council we have not only an authoritative 
and infallible decision, but we have, at the same time, an 
assurance of its practical acceptance and adoption by the whole 
Church. Hence, a General Council, though not absolutely 
necessary, is yet, besides its many other advantages, a most 


THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, 535 


useful and efficacious means of infallibly deciding questions 
of faith. Nor does it follow because a Council confirms the 
sentence of a Pope, as at Ephesus and Chalcedon, that it con- 
sidered the Pope’s dogmatic decision as fallible; for we often 
find that subsequent Councils confirm preceding ones which 
were admittedly infallible. There is room for the double action, 
that of the head and that of the members ; both are harmonious 
and mutually complementary one of the other. The Church 
follows the example of the Apostles in Council assembled. 
Peter gives his dogmatic decision ; James arises to confirm it, 
and to prove that it is in harmony with the tradition of the Old 
Testament Revelation. We therefore fail to see why, on the 
hypothesis of Papal infallibility, the history of the Church should 
have been otherwise than it actually is. | 

19f But are there, then, two infallibilities and two infallible 
teachers in the Church? In what relation does Papal infalli- 
bility stand to that of the Church or General Council? It 
would seem, at the first sight, that there is what Theologians 
cail a twofold sudjectum infallibilitatis, because infallibility is 
claimed for the Pope by himself, and also for the body of. 
bishops whether they define a doctrine of faith in solemn 
Council, or whether they propose it to the faithful simply by the 
unanimous teaching of their ordinary Magisterium. This, how- 
2ver, is but a mechanical view of infallibility which, on closer 
2xamination, is seen to have no foundation in reality. The 
attribute of infallibility directly and immediately belongs to the 
supreme power of teaching. The promise of infaliibility is 
made to the Magisterium Apostolicum. But this supreme 
power of teaching with divine authority and divine certaint;, 
although extended to many who are permitted to share it, is yet 
essentially one and indivisible, It is the same whether it 
manifests itself in the action of the head, or in the action of 
head and members combined ; just as the human soul is on2, 
whether it reveals its presence and power by one member, or 
by another, or by all at once. We may even press the analogy 


536 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 


still further, and say that as the action of the soul, revealed in 
one part of the body, implies, whether seen or not, a corres- 
pondisy action in other parts, so also does the action of the 
Head of the Church imply a corresponding exercise on the part 
of the other members, and vice-versa. The Church is an 
organism, not a mechanism. ‘The Episcopate, says S. Cyprian, 
is one, though there be many bishops. The Apostolic power 
is one, beginning in the head, and spreading over all the mem- | 
bers joined to it; and it is this one Apostolic power of teach- 
ing that is infallible. Hence the Vatican Council defines that 
‘the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra . . . is 
“possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer 
“willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doc- 
“‘trine regarding faith or morals . . .” Thus there is but 
one infallibility, as there is but one Magisterium and one faith. 

20. But how, if it happened that, after due deliberation and 
examination at a General Council, it was found that a previous 
decision of a Pope was not in harmeny=with Apostolic and 
Catholic truth? The answer is simple enough from a Catholic 
-point of view. Not every Papal decision is an ex cathedra 
definition even in matters of faith and morals. If therefore the 
case really occurred, it would mean one of two things: either 
that the previous decision was not ex cathedra, or that the dis- 
crepancy is not real but only apparent. Indeed when we come 
to examine the past history of the Church, ihere is only one’ 
instance which can be brought forward, with any show of 
reason, as a difficulty against the Catholic position. We mean 
the case of Pope Honorius, and his condemnation by a General 
Council, For the cases of Popes Liberius and Vigilius have 
no bearing whatever upon our present question, which is not 
whether a Pope can sin against faith, but whether he can err 
when as supreme head and teacher he freely and deliberately 
Sivés sentence upon a point of faith, with the manifest intention 
of making it binding upon the faithful at large.?6 


25 On the facts of the cuse of Liberius and Vigilius the reader may cersult Bishop 
Hefele’s History of the Ccewncils, i. 681; ii. 825. 880. gos (C=rm. Ed.) 


THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, a oan 


Now the history of Honorius is briefly this. The internal 
peace and unity of the Empire had been undermined by the 
prolonged controversies upon the person and nature of Christ, 
_ controvesies which, by the inevitable discussion and bitterness 
which they entailed, rendered the empire dangerously weak in 
the presence of enemies without. Hence the Emperor Hezac- 
lius was earnest to find a remedy. It was then that Sergius, 
the astute Patriarch of Consrantinop'e, suggested the plan of 
caining over Cyrus of Alexandria with the panty of the Theo- 
dosians, by allowing bis new doctrine and foimvla of one cil 
and one energy in Christ. The plan was so far successfal. 
But it met with stout oppos'tion on the part of the orthcedox, 
and especially of Sophronius, Bishop of Jerusalem, Wi.ence 
it became necessary for Seigius to desist from pressing the new 
formula, and rather to advozste a policy of silence upyn what 
he cunningly represented as a mere verbal dispute. In this 
sense he addressed a letter to Pope Honoritus, describing in 
glowing colours the necessity of reunton and the great and im- 
mediate advantaces that would accrue to the Eastern Caurch 
from his sanction of the policy of silence. Honorius (A.D. 
625-638) not perceiving the snare laid for him by the wily 
Patriarch, writes back to him a letter wherein he mainly agrees 
with the policy of silence; exp'aining at the Same time, that 
the expressions of one or two energies are unsatisfactoiy as 
savouring of Monophysitism and Nestorianism respeciively, 
and that the whole matier was one of grammatical sub‘el'y.”6 
But as regards the formula of one wid, he adopts it as being in 
harmony with Scripcure and Tradition, from which we iearn 
that there are not two contrary wills of Christ, as there are in 
us sintvul men. 

A fair and impsriial perusal of his whole letter will convince 
the reader that Honorius did not hoid any doctiine at variance 
with the Catholic faith, and, in paricular, not the doctrine of 
the Monothelites.*7 On the other hand, it is equally clear 


26 See Hefcte, iii, 146. 
a7 (Lbid. iti. 167. 


5338 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, 


that his confiding nature led him into a sad mistake, and that 
he, unwittingly, helped the cause of heresy, inasmuch as 
according to its false and perfidious character it would hence- 
forth allege the explicit sanction of the Roman Pontiff. 

We have next to see what impression his letter and mistake 
produced, when they were discovered, upon the Catholic 
world. : 

We find that John IV. (A.D. 641),% as well as Abbots 
Jom Samponus and Maximus defended his letter against the 
charge of erroneous doctrinc. Pope Martin I., also, in his 
Lateran Synod (A.D. 649) does not name him among th? 
Monothelites, neither does Agatho in his Roman Synod 
(A.D. 680). But ia this very year, when the Sixth Generai 
Council asssembled at Constantinople, events seemed to have 
taken a new and different turn. The Monothelites, it appears, 
continued to shelter themselves not only behind tie authority 
of Sergius and others, but also behind that of Pope Honorius. 
The Council was thus obliged to take notice of it; and it 
decided thus: ‘After reading the dogmatic epistles of Sergius 
“of Constantinople to Cyrus of Phasis, and to Pope Honorius, 
“as well as the letter of Honorius to Sergius, we find that 
‘these documents are altogether at variance with the Apostolic 
‘“dogmas, the declarations of the holy Councils, and the 
“teaching of the most distinguished Fathers; and they follow 
“the false doctrines of the heretics. Hence we reject them 
“altogether and detest them as_ soul-destroying.”*® The 
Council then pr:ceeds to excommunicate them by name, and 
thus continues: “Besides these, such is our unanimous 
“decree, there is to be excommunicated cnd anathematized 
** Honorius, formerly of old Rome, because we find in his 
*“epistle to Sergius that he followed in his opinion and con- 
“firmed his impious doctrines.” Later on, he is named again 
as among those who gave scandal in the Church by spreading 


98 bid. iii. 169. Steutrup, De Verbo Incarn. i. 2,850, Kirchenlexicon, vi. 233. 
29 Hefele, ili. 263, 270, 276, 279, 283, 286, 289, 294. 


THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 539 


the heretical doctrine of one will and one energy. The 
same charge is repeated in the letters of the Council ad- 
dressed to the Emperor and to Pope Agatho. In his reply, 
confirming the Council, the Emperor says: ‘‘ The heresy 
‘of Apollinaris . . . has been renewed by Theodore of 
“Pharan, and confirmed by Honorius, who contradicted 
““ himself.’’ He then goes on to say that he ‘‘ anathematizes 
“all heretics . . . also Pope Honorius, who was in all 
“things their follower and abettor, confirming their 
peneresy... 

Pope Leo JJ. finally confirmed the Sixth Council, and 
“anathematized all heretics . . . likewise the authors of 
‘the new doctrine . . . also Honorius, who did not light 
“up his Apostolic Chair by the doctrine of tradition, but 
“allowed (mapeyapyoe) the spotless faith to be undermined 
“ by mean betrayal—and all who died in his error.’’ 

The same Pope writes to the Bishops of Spain that the 
above named had been punished with everlasting condem- 
nation—** Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic 
" Authority, extinguish the flame of heresy in the very 
“ beginning, but fanned it by his negligence.’’ And to 
King Erwig he writes: ‘‘ And together with them Hono- 
“rius of Rome, who suffered the immaculate rule of Apos- 
“‘tolic tradition which he had received from his predeces- 
“sors to be stained.’’ These, then, are briefly the facts of 
the case. 

21. Catholic Apologists have tried many ways of meet- 
ing the difficulty that arises from the letter, and still 
more from the condemnation of Pope MHonorius with 
regard to Papal infallibility. Some have called in ques- 
tion the genuineness both of the letter and of the acts 
of the Council ;* but surely without sufficient ground. 
Others, again, with Garnier (died 1681), were of opin- 
ion that the Council had condemned Honorius’ let- 
ter not as containing heresy, but as favouring it by 
neglect and want of perception. But this opinion, at 


30 Piphius, Baronius, Damberger. 


540 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, 


one time commonly held, has more recently been abandoned.*! 
Pennachi especially showed that the Council had condemned 
Honorius as a heretic. His main proof consists in the com- 
parison of all the passages bearing on the point from the 
Sixth Council, in its confirmation by the Council of ‘Trullum 
(A.D. 692), and by the Seventh and Eighth General Councils, 
as well as by the wording of the oath which the Pope had 
to take, and which is contained in the Liber Diurnus.3? 
Those favouring this opinion meet the difficulty against Panal 
infallibility by undermining the character of the General 
Council. Its decision,.they say, rested on an error of fact; 
nor was it the decison of a General Council, but of an 
assembly of Eastern bishops; and though the Papal legates 
signed it, they had no commission to do so. The Pope, in 
confirming the Council, rectified their mistake,%3 

Others, finally, are of opinion that the whole question is 
solved by denying that the letter of Honorius was an ex 
cathedra statement. ‘This, no doubt, is true.“4 At the same 
time it is going beyond the limits of historical truth to say 
that it was a mere private letter.*> But the chief difficulty lies 
not in the letter, but in the condemnation of the Pope by the 
Sixth Council and its subsequent Papal confirmation. 

22. The solution which best commends itself to our mind 
is that given by Bishop Hefele. Whatever may nave been the 
intentions of the Council that formulated the condemnation, 
“Pope Leo II.,” says Helele, “ couched the condemnation in 
“terms more precise and definite, and thus indicated the sense 
“‘in which the condemnatory sentence of the Council is to be 
accepted.” §8 In this way the authority of the VIth Council is 


42 Pennachi, Delicati, Palmieri, See Grisar, Zectschrist Jur Kathol. Theolagie, 
1887, p. 675. 

32 See Hefele, /.c. p. 295. 

33 Grisar, Ze. p. 687. 

34 Tournely, De Ecc?, Q.3, a. 4 

35 Gueranger, p. 94, 155. Schneeman, Studien tiber die Honoriusfrage, Freiburg, 
1864, p. 63. Hettinger, Fund. Theol. p. 748. Grisar, 4.¢. 

36 Hefele, iii. 299. 


THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, 541 


safeguarded, and Papal infallibility in ex-cathedra decisions 
remains untouched. Does it not speak well for the wisdom 
and infalitbility of the Holy See, that it knew how to avoid the 
pitfall to which the sentence of the Council came so perilously 
near P 

23. The subsequent course of history, moreover, shows that 
the mistake and condemnation of Pope Honorius were unable 
to shake the faith in the infallibility of the Apostolic See. ‘The 
Metropolitans of Africa, in the name of the Councils, write ¢o 
Theodore, third successor of Flonorius, asking him to put an 
end to the Monothelite controversy ; for “no one can doubt,” 
they say, “that in the Apostolic See there flows a great and 
“inexhaustible spring which pours forth its waters upon all the 
“faithful, and whose rich streams irrigate the whole Christian 
“world. To this Apostclic Chair, in honour of S. Peter, the 
“Fathers in their decrees have ascribed especial auihority in 
“matters of faith . . . here all other churches have to 
“seek the origin of doctrine, and thus, in all parts of the 
“world, the mysteries of salvation are preserved in their 
“inmiperishable purity.” 

About the same time the Eastern Church through Sergius, 
Metropolian of Cyprus, addressed itself to the Pope in these 
words: “O, holy head, Jesus Christ has set up thine Apostolic 
“Chair, made strong by God as an unchangeable fortress, as a 
“lignt and rule of faith . . , thou, as head and teacher of 
“the right and unadulterated faith, art the destroyer of unholy 
“heresies.” * = Theodore consequently condemned those 
Patriarchs that had been accused before him. 


* As considerable importance is attached, in certain quarters, to the opperition of the 
Greek Cou:ch against the Roman clams, 1t may b: well to note here the fact that 
expressions similar to those of Sergins have passed into the Liturgy of the 
Russian Churches, and remain there to this day. Thus, the prayer appointed for 
the anniversary of Pope S. Siivester contains these words : “ Thou art the head 
** of the holy assemoly ; thou dost render illustrious the throne cf the Prince of 
‘the Apostles, O divine head of the hoiy bishops!” Again ia the prayer for the 

_Feast of Pope S. Leo I. occur the following words: ‘f What name shall I give to 
“thee this day? Shall Icall thee the wonderful herold and firm stronghold of 
“truth, the venerable head of the Supreme Council, the successor on the highest 
“throne of S. Peter, the heir of the unconquerable rock and the successor in his 


542 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, 


WI. THE EVIDENCE OF TRADITION IN THE MIDDLE AGES. 


24. The condemnation of Pope Honorius, however, was 
not without its effect upon subsequent ages. It gave occasion 
to the distinction between personal and official infallibility. 
Already Hadrian IT. 4a.p. 867-872) had made the remark, with 
reference to the condemnation of Honorius by a General Council, 
that heresy is the only instance, when it is lawful for an inferior 
authority to judge a superior ; and he adds (erroneously indeed) 
that even in this case the Council only condemned the Pope, 
because the consent of the Apostolic See had previously been 
given. From this remark it would appear that the doctrine 
“prima sedes non Judicatur a qguopiam” was not so generally 
received,°? as some would have us believe. On the contrary, 
the opinion that in case of heresy a Pope could be deposed, 
began Jater to prevail more widely. Innocent III., S. Boniface, 
and the Decretum Gratiani admit that the Pope can be judged, 
if he sins against faith.38 Innocent III., though defending the 
indefectibility of faith in the Roman See most decidedly, 
according to the promise in S. Luke xxii., 32, nevertlieless 
says: ‘So much is faith necessary to me, that, while in other 
“sins I have no judge but God, in a sin against faith I may be 
“judged by the Church.” Again: ‘‘Only in case of spiritual 
“adultery can the Church dismiss a Pope, that is, in case of an 
“error in faith, Still I would not easily believe that God 
* permits such an error in the Pope, for whom he has prayed 
* specially in Peter.” 

The Schoolmen, on the whole, adopted this view and dis- 


“kingdom?” Inthe prayer for the Feast of Pope S. Martin it is said : ** Thou 
** didst adorn the divine thione of Peter, and because thou hast maintained the 
*““Church upon this unshaken rock, thou dost glorify thy name, O glorious — 
** teacher of all orthodox doctrine, O mouth that proclaimed the truth of divine 
** ommandments, and round which the entire priesthood and orthodox community 
*‘ gather in order to condemn heresy.” Similar addresses occur in the prayess 
appointed for the Feasts of Gregory I]. and Leo. III, These facts throw a curious 
light upon the early faith, not oniy of the Russian, but of the Greek Church at 
large. See W. Wilmers, S.J. Geschichte der Religion, vol. p. 123. Tr. 


37 See Hefele, iii. 302 5 i. 1443 iv. 768 3 v. 1803 383, 808, 1002, 
33 Decry. Grat. Dist. 39,c.6. Innoc. III., De Consecr. Pont. Sermo. 2, 3 Sehwane 
ili. 535- 


THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 543 


tinction, as a consequence of the case of Honorius. Isidore 
already, in a letter whose genuineness, however, is not quite 
certain, had said that obedience is due to the Pope as Vicar of 
Christ, provided he commands noihing against the faith, 
“ Whosoever obstinately resists him we declare a heretic and 
“wholly excommunicated from the socicty of the faithful, 
“And this we say not from our own caprice, but we hold it 
“firmly on the authority of the Holy Ghost.” Gerbert, after- 
wards Sylvester II., speaks in the same sense. The action of 
Philip Le Bel against Boniface VIII., and of Louis the 
Bavarian against John XXII, rested on the same assump. 
tion,”? namely, that it is possible for a Pope as a private person 
to sin against faith. Such also was the opinion of Gerson, 
Nicholas of Cusa, and Cajetan. Even ‘lurrecremata, the great 
champion of Papal authority and infallibility, grants the 
possibility of private sin against faith, because the Pope is a 
a free agent. Infallibility only appertains to his decisions de 
sede sua. So far he had clearly grasped the distinction drawn 
by Innocent III. between personal and official infallibility. 
But then he goes on to explain that a heretical Pope, by the 
very fact of falling into private heresy, would lose his Apostolic 
office, and separate himself from the Church, and render 
himself incapable of a Papal pronouncement.4° This explana- 
tion, however, is more calculated to obscure the distinction 
than to render it clear. 

25. But the official infallibility of the Pope was widely 
recognized in the Middle Ages, and began to be formulated 
more and more distinctly. Bishop Addése/m of Sherborne in 
England (died 709) thus speaks of the necessity of communion 
with Rome: “In vain does he boast of the Catholic faith, who 
“does not follow the dogma and rule of S. Peter; the founda- 
“tion of the Church, which is principally (primcttac/er) in 
“Christ and consequently (conseguenter) in Peter, and the 


39 Hefele vi., 522. Schwane iii., 467, 554. 
qe Summa de Ecci., ii. 259. Schwane, iii. 574. See Bellarm. De Rom. Pontif., iv. 2 


544 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 


“fortress of faith, will never be shaken by any storms. . . 
“To Peter was the privilege over the Church given by Him 
“who is Truth.”4! Zheodore Studita (died 826), Abbot of 
Constantinople, writes to Pope Leo III.: ‘Save wus, O, 
“supreme Pastor of the whole Church which is under heaven, 
“we perish. Imitate thy Master, Christ, and hold cut your 
“hand to the Church . . . imitate thy name’s sake, Leo 
“the Great . . . in the name of God let thy voice go 
forth, or rather let it thunder, as it is becoming, against this 
*‘present heresy.” Again to Paschalis he writés: ‘You are 
“from the beginning the true, pure, clear source of orthodox 
“truth.” Jenatius, Patriarch of Constantinople, writes to Pope 
Nicholas that Christ has constituted the Pope as the only 
physician for His body, the Church. For the words spoken 
to Peter (Matih. xvi., 17) were not addressed to him alone, but 
to all his successors; and these had ever destroyed all 
heresies.*” Pope Wecholas J, himself asserts the Papal Supremacy 
before Greeks and Franks alike. To King Charles the Bald 
he writes to exhort him not to suffer that the rights of the 
Apostolic See be impaired in any way, because the privileges of 
Rome are saving means for the whole Church of Christ; 
weapons against every attack of iniquity, a sure protection for 
all priests and all who suffer persecution. . The newly- 
converted Bulgarians being troubled by various heretics applied 
to him in order to know the sure doctrine of Christian truth: 
He sent them the celebrated 106 Resfonsa ad Consulta 
Bulgaroium ; and in the answer he thus speaks: “ You ask of 
“me that I should impart to you the true Christian doctrine, 
“because there have come into your country diverse Christians 
“speaking different languages and teaching different doctrines: 
‘“We ourselves are not able to do so of ourselves, but our 
“sufficiency is from God, and S. Peter, who lives in his See, 
“gives to those who seek the truth of faith. For the Holy 


41 Ep.i. See Langen, ii. 39. Hefele, iii. 349, 360. 
42 Mansi, xvi. 325. See Gelas. Zp. xxvi., xxvii. Fournely, Q. 3,a. 2) 1. Langeti, ii. g& 
43 Zp. xxx. Hefele, iv’ 285, 347. 


~ 


THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 545 


“Roman Church has ever been without spot or wrinkle, 
“because it was founded by him whose faith was approved by 
“God.” Bishop Aeneas of Paris (died 870), who was asked 
by Hincmar to take up the defence of the West against 
Photius, argues, in the introduction to his book, that the See 
of Constantinople has repeatedly been stained by heretical 
occupants, while by the providence of God the Roman See, 
which was held by the Chief of the Apostles and hallowed by 
his blood, had never been stained by heresy. The Lord had 
said: Thou art Peter, etc. If, then, He committed the whole 
kingdom to him, how could he not also strengthen his faith ? 4 
Leo JX. makes use of the same argument. ‘Is it not by this 
“Chair of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and of the Roman 
“Church, that is, by Peter and his successors, that all her2sies 
“have been rejected, condemned, and overcome, and the 
“hearts of all brethren strengthened in the faith of Feter, 
‘which hitherto has never been, nor ever will be lust ?”4 
Peter Damian calls the Pope the only universal bishop of all 
the churches. All knowledge is to be sought from Teter, to 
whom the keys of knowledge and power have been given. He 
has received from the Creator the chair of truth in an especial 
manner, so that each one, desiring to be instructed ii things 
divine, might resort to the oracle and doctrine of this teacher. 
Even Paul, the Apostle, has gone to the magisterium of Peter 
and has spent many days with him in the divine school.46 

26.* Langen, after considering these, and many other 
similar passages from ancient and medizeval writers, neverthe- 
less comes to the conclusion that Papal infallibi'ity was not 
velieved previously to the 13th century.47 Here is kis reason: 
‘‘ According to the ancient view and belief, questions of faith were 
‘never decided by the mere word of a Papal jfia¢, but rather by 


44. Liber contra Object. Graecor. (Migne, cxxi. 685). Concerning the faith of : »* Greek 
and early Russian Church see our note ton. 23 above. Tr. 


45 £/.C, 6.7. 15.18. Hefele, iv. 768. Langen, ii. 41. 
46 Ofusc. xxxiii. 1 3 xxxviii. Xr. 
47°77 ¢. 4. 123. 


546 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 


‘Apostolic tradition as spread among the Church, and as 
“ascertained and established by the competent organs.” 
Plainly Langen has an utterly mistaken notion of Papal 
infallibility. No one maintains that the Pope can decide by a 
mere word of cornmmand, or that he can dispense with the 
ordinary means of evidence for tradition. Of course, the 
Apostolic tradition, and nothing else, is decisive in questions 
of faith, and, whatever the competent organs may be, they 
are bound to establish it, in the first instance, by human 
means of evidence, But the question is precisely as to who is 
the supreme and final witness to tradition? Can Langen deny 

that the unanimous voice of antiquity assigns the first place | 
among the witnesses of tradition to the Apostolic See of Rome, 
or, that it does so on other grounds than the Petrine texts 
of Scripture? Can he deny, again, that the testimony of the 
competent organs (bishops) of tradition became decisive and 
final by the accession of the testimony of the Apostolic See? 
This, and this alone, forms what we call the substance of 
the dogma of Papal infallibility, and what we affirm to be as 
old as the Church herself. Everything else connected with it 
is the result of that development, which, as we have shown 
above, is proper to Christian dogma. Langen’s objection, 
therefore, like most other objections against Papal infallibility, 
is not directed against the Catholic dogma, but against a patent 
_ misrepresentation of it—a phantom of his own creation. It is 
not pessible to obtain a true and genuine Catholic notion of 
Papal infallibility without a thorough grasp of the entire prin- 
ciple of tradition and development. 

27* The only truth, then, underlying the statement of 
Langen is this, that, with the 13 century, the sukstance of the 
dogma of Papal infallibility has entered upon a new stage of — 
development. This we grant. For with S. Tomas begins a 
new era of Catholic Theology. It was reserved to his master- 
mind to bring the entire material of revealed religion into one 
harmonious system. But it was quite impossible to rear such a 


THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, 547 


complete edifice of Christian doctrine without setting forth in a 
new light the whole doctrinal fabric with each and all its parts. 
Their relative position, their mutual bearing upon one another, 
their respective functions would, necessarily become more clear, 
and distinct, and definite than Lefore. This would be particu- 
larly true of a doctrine so fundamental in the entire system of 
religion as Papal supremacy and infallibility. Whence the 
peculiar method of S. Thomas: he is less anxious to prove the 
dogma of Papal infallibility from Scripture and Tradition, than 
to view the consequences involved in its institution, and arising 
from the very nature and purpose of the Church. His purpose 
is far more speculative than positive ; this was quite in keeping 
with the intellectual character of the age. Still we must not 
suppose that he created an ideal Church, or evolved it from his 
inner consciousness ; rather he simply took the Church as it 
presented itself to him in history and in the universal belief 
of the Christian World, and translated it into the realm of 
thought and scientific Theology. In his critical knowledge, 
indeed, he was dependent on the resources of his age which 
were at time defective, as his quotations from Cyril and 
Alexandria show. Nevertheless, his main arguments are un- 
assailable. Thus it happened that S. Thomas became hence- 
forth the great authority upon the question of Papal infallilility 
as well as upon other questions, and his disciples the most 
determined defenders of that dogma. | 

Though the term “ex cathedra definition” does not yet 
occur in S. Thomas, the thing itself is clearly expressed by 
him. He accurately, though not minutely, explains the 
subject, object, extent, and limits of Papal infallibility. 

The odject is the traditional doctrine concerning faith and 
morals. But to faith, that is to say, to revealed truth, a thing 
may belong in two ways—either directly and principally. or 
indirectly and secondarily. The latter class comprises those 
things which if untrue, would impair the truth of that which is 
directly revealed and is an article of faith.* 


* S. Thom: ii. ii. Q. xi.a.s. Q.i,a.6ad1m: Q. ii. a. 5. 


548 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 


The sxdject is the Pope as supreme teacher of al! the 
faithful, and in virtue of his Apostolic authority. The 
positive ground oa which the dogma rests are the Petrine 
texts of Scripture and the traditional faith and practice of 
the Church, The speculative reasons lie in the very nature 
of the Primacy, and of the constitution of the Church, but 
more especially in the absolute necessity of unity of faith. 
“To set up a Creed (v. gr. the Athanasian) belongs to the’ 
“authority of him, to whose authority it appertains to decide 
“finally what is of faith in order that all may hold fast to it” 
“with unshaken certainty. But this belongs to the authority 
‘of the Pope, to whom all greater and more difficult questions 
“have to be referred, as it is said in the Decretals (Extra de 
“Bapt., cap. Aajores), For this reason also has the Lord 
“said to Peter, whom He constituted sovereign Pontiff: I 
“have prayed for thee, etc. (Luke xxii. 32). The reason” 
“of it being that there must be ove faith in the whole Church 
“(1 Cor. i. 10). But this is impossible, unless a question that 
‘“‘has arisen concerning the faith, be decided by him who 
“presides over the whole Church, so that his sentence may 
“be held firmly by the entire Church.’48 

Again, in his summa c. gentiles, c. 74-76, where he views 
the whole organism of the Church, and explains the rélative. 
position and function of its constituent parts, he thus con- 
cludes: “It is manifest that the government (summa potestas 
“regimimis) of the Christian people belongs to the Episccpal 
“dignity. But it is equally manifest that, though the people. 
“be divided into many dioceses and towns, yet there must be’ 
“one Christian people as there is one Church. Consequently, 
“as there is one bishop for each particular church, who is the 
“head of the whole flock belonging to that (particular) church, 
‘“‘so there must be one head of the whole Church, and of all 
“the Christian people. Again, the unity of the Church 


@ ii. ii. Q. i. a. 103; Q. xi. m 2 ad 3m. C. Gent, iv. 76. See also Opuse, iii. In 
Symbol. Apost. a. 9. 


si Jat te 


a — 


. 


THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 549 


“requires that all should agree in the same faith. But it 
“happens that questions arise concerning the faith. Now a 
“diversity of opinions would divide the Church, unless it were 
“maintained in unity by the sentence of one. Therefore, in 
“order to preserve unity, there must be one head of the whole 
“Church. But it is manifest that in things essential Christ 
“does not fail His Church, which He has loved, and for which 
“He has shed His blood. ... Yet, if anyone were to say 
“that Christ is the one head and the one pastor of the Church, 
“who is also the sp~use of this one Church, it is not sufficient. 
“For it is clear that Christ is the (chief) minister of all the 
**Sacraments—He baptizes, He forgives sins, He is the true 
“priest . . . and yet, as He is not bodily present among all 
“the faithful, He has elected ministers who are to disjense 
“the Sacraments to the faithful. In the same way, therefore, 
‘when He was withdrawing His bodily presence from the 
**Church, it was necessary that He should commit to someone 
“fin His stead the care of the universal Church. Hence, 
“before His Ascension He said unto Peter: Feed My shcep 
“(John xxi. 17); and before His Passion: But thou once 
“converted, confirm thy brethren (Luke xxii. 32); and to him 
‘alone He promised: To thee will I give the keys of the 
“kingdom of heaven (Matt. xvi. 19), thus showing that the 
‘power of the keys was to pass on to others for the preserva- 
“tion of the unity of the Church. . .. Thus is excluded the 
“presumptuous error of some who try to withdraw from the 
‘obedience and subjection of Peter by not acknowledging his 
“successor, the Roman Pontiff, as Pastor of the Universal 
“Church.” Again, as to the relation of Papal infallibility to 
the Universal Church, S. Thomas felt not the least perplexity. 
“If anyone,” he says, ‘“pertinaciously resisted the ruling (of 
“the Universal Church), he would be considered a heretic. 
“But the authority (of the Church) resides principally in the 
* sovereign Pontiff. . . against whose authority neither Jerome, 
“nor Augustine, nor any of the holy Doctors defended their 


550 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, 


‘‘ (own) opinions.’’ We have quoted these passages of S. 
Thomas not only because they are important as determin- 
ing an epoch in the history of this dogma, but alsoin order 
that the reader may judge for himself of the absolute false- 
hood of the statement in Janus, which runs thus: ‘“‘ It was 
‘“on the basis of fabrications invented by a monk of his 
“own order, including a canon of Chalcedon, giving all 
‘the bishops an unlimited right of appeal to the Pope, and 
‘on the forgeries found in Gratian, that S. Thomas built 
‘“up his Papal system, with its two leading principles—that 
‘the Pope is the first infallible teacher of the world, and 
‘the absolute ruler of ‘the Church. The spurious Cyril of 
‘’ Alexandria is his favourite author on this subject (?) and 
“he constantly quotes him.’’* 

28. The other great medizval school, the Franciscan 
represented by the most illustrious teacher, S. Bonaven- 
ture, is in perfect agreement with S. Thomas. The Ser- 
aphic Doctor especially urges that the decrees of the 
Pope, in matters of faith and morals, have the same bind- 
ing forceas those of the Church. WithS. Anselm he holds 
that the Roman Church has power to establish a new sym- 
bol of faith (Creed), because she has received that plenitude 
of power from Peter against which nothing in the Church 
can prevail.” Duns Scotus, too, is of the same mind, and 
defends the same doctrine as S. Bonaventure ™ We need 
not prolong the list of quotations from the Schoolmen, as 
it is generally admitted that they believed in Papal infalli- 
bility. But it is incumbent upon us to say a few words in 
order to account for the opposition that gradually arose 
within the Church itself against the doctrine. 

29.* The reaction which set in against the doctrine of Papal 
infallibility was not based on any theological grounds, as, for 
instance, want of evidence in Scripture or Tradition, nor wasit 


49 Afol. Paup~.c.1. Expos. Luc. c. 9, 10. In Sent.i. D. xi. a. 1, q. 1. See Bouix, 
De Papa Prop. 56, and Traité sur ? Autorité et l’ Infaill. des Papes. chap. xii. 


50 Rep. 4 Dist. xix. q. 1, Schol. 5. 
* The Pope and the Council, chap. iii. p. 267 (English Transi.). 


THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 551 


confined to Papal infallibility, but extended likewise to the 
infallibility of General Councils, and in particular to the Primacy, 
or the superiority of the Pope over General Councils. The 
origin and causes of the Anti-papal tendency lay entirely in 
the circumstances of the times. The sad condition in which 
the Church found herself in consequence of the Western 
Schism, forced men to resort to every kind of expedient in 
order to extricate the Church from an intolerable situation. 
Such an expedient was the theory of the superiority of a General 
Council over the Pope. Having once started the new doctrine 
its authors and advocates were bound to justify it theologically 
as best they could. Precisely the same may be said of the later 
Gallican School of opposition. It derived what life and strength 
it had from influences external to the Church and to theological 
science. This is clear from the testimony of Petrus de Afarca 
who writes thus (A.D. 1682): “The opinion in favour of Papal 
“infallibility is unanimously taught in Spain and Italy, and all 
‘other Christian countries, so that the opposite opinion, which 
‘is usually attributed to the School of Paris, must be numbered 
“among the opinions which are merely tolerated. All univer- 
“sities, with the sole exception of the Old Sorbonne (and even 
‘‘here he had of late noticed a change) ascribe to the Roman 
“ Pontiffs authority to decide infallibly in matters of faith.” 
The letters, likewise, which the French Clergy, on the subject 
of Jansenism, addressed to Innocent x. (A.D. 1655), and to 
Alexander vil. (A.D. 1660), frankly acknowledge the infallibility 
of the Pope, and thus form a peculiar contrast to the Gallican 
articles of 1682, so that Benedict xiv. could truly say of 
Bossuet’s defensio Cleri Gallicani that it would be difficult to 
find a work more contrary to the teaching universally received. 
Indeed, the doctrine of S. Thomas continued to be defended 
by the great Theologians of the Church, as Turrecremata, 
Autoninus, Cajetan, Bellarmine, and that Suarez could call it 


gt Petr. de Marca, Observationes supra Theses Claram. No. xvii Bellarm, De 
Controv. s. xi. 


552 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 


sententia communisstma, and even veritas catholica.* Indeed, 
the opposition from within the Church had gradually lest its 
strength, and was practically dead by the time of the Vaiican 
Council. The consensus of Catholics was all but unanimous. 
The opposition within the Council was mainly confined to the 
opportuneness of a definition. The sharp and vigorous attack 
upon the truth itself was due to the spirit that came from with- 
out the Church. The Church herself felt that ail the con- 
ditions under which a revealed truth has run its course cf 
Gevelopment, were now given and the dogma was ripe for 
definition, 

30. We subjoin the fall text of the Vatican definition, as it 
is a brief recapitulation of the whcle doctrine we have tried to 
establish in the present chapter. 3 

“Moreover, that the supreme power of teaching is also 
“included in the Apostolic primacy, which the Roman Pontiff, 
“fas the successor cf l'eter, Prince of the Apostles, possesses 
“over the whole Church, this Hoiy See has always held, the 
‘“perpeiua! practice of the Church cenfirms, and CEcumenical 
“Councils also have declared, especially those in which the 
“East with the West met in the union of faith and charity. 
“For the Fathers of the Fourth Council! of Constantinople, 
“following fn the footsteps of their predecessors, gave forth 
“this solemn professton: The first condition of salvation is to 
“keep the rule of the true faith. And because the sentence 
“of cur Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed by, who said: 
“Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my 
“Chutch,? these things which have been said are approved 
“by events, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic Religion 
“and her holy and well-known doctrine has always beén kept 

undenied. Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree 
“separated from the faith and doctrine of that See, we hope 
® Fora cateca of English witnesses to this doctrine both before and after the Reforma. 
tion see Cacdinal Manning's * Zhe Vatican Council and its Definitions, 


P. 140, 152, 
t S. Matthew xvi. 18, 


THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, 553 


“that we may deserve to be in the one commzinion, which the 
“ Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true 
“ Christian religion.* And, with the approval of the Second 
“Council of Lyons, the Greeks professed that the Holy 
“Roman Church enjoys supreme and full Premacy and pre- 
“eminence over the whole Catholic Church, which it truly 
“and humbly acknowledges that it has received with the 
*‘ plentitude of power from our Lord Himself in the person 
“of blessed Peter, Prince or Head of the Apostles, whose 
successor the Romar: Pontiff is; and as the Apostolic See 
“is pound before all others to defend the truth of faith, so also 
“if any quesiions regarding faith shall arise, they must be 
“defined by its judgment.{ Finally, the Council of Florence 
“defined:t That the Roman Pontiff is the true Vicar of 
“Christ, and the Head of the whole Church, and the Father 
“and Teacher of all Christians; and that to him in blessed 
“ Peter was delivered by our Lord Jesus Christ the full power 
*‘ of feeding, ruling, and governing the whole Church. § 
“To satisfy this pastoral duty our predecessors ever made 
“unwcaried efforts that the salutary doctrine of Christ might 
“be propagated among all the nations of the earth, and with 
“equal care watched that it might be preserved genuine and 
“pure where it had been received. Therefore the bishops of 
“the whole world, now singly, now assembled in synod, 
“ following the long-established custom of Churches,]|| and the 
“form of the ancient rule,** sent word to this Apostolic See of 
“those dangers especially which sprang up in matters of faith, 
# From the Formula of St. Hormisdas, subscribed by the Fathers of the Eighth 
General Council (Fourth of Constantinople), a.D. 869. Labbés Councils, vol. 
v. p. 5833, 622. 

# From the Acts of the Fourteenth General Council (Second of Lyons), A.D. 1274. 
Labbé, voi. xiv. p. 512. 

¢ From the Acts of the Seventeenth General Council of Florence, a.pD. 1438. Labbé, 
vol. xvili_ p. §26. 

$ John xxi. 15-17. 

| From a letter of S Cyri! of Alexandsia to Pepe S. Celestine I. A.D. 422, vol. vi. part 
ii. p. 36, Paris edition of 1638. 


#* From a Rescript of S. Inrocent I. to the Council of Milevis, A.D. 402. Labbé, vol. 
iii. p. 47- 


554 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 


“that there the losses of faith might be most effectually. 
“repaired where the faith cannot fail.* And the Roman 
“ Pontiffs, according to the exigencies of times and circum- 
“stances, sometimes assembling Ecumenical Councils, or 
“asking for the mind of the Church scattered throughout 
“the world, sometimes by particular Synods, sometimes using 
“other helps which Divine Providence supplied, defined as to 
“be held those things which with the help of God they had 
“recognised as conformable with the Sacred Scriptures and 
“Apostolic Traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not promised 
“to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might 
“make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they 
“‘might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation 
“or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles. And 
“indeed all the venerable Fathers have embraced and the 
‘“‘holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed their 
“Apostolic doctrine ; knowing most fully that this See of holy 
“Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error according 
“to the divine promise of the Lord our Saviour made to the 
* Prince of His disciples: I have prayed for thee that thy faith 
“fail not, and, when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren. f 

“This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was con- 
“ferced by Heaven upon Peter and his successors in this 
“Chair, that they might perform their high office for the 
“salvation of all; that the whole flock of Christ kept away 
“by them from the poisonous food of error, might be 
“nourished with the pastures of heavenly doctrine; that the 
“occasion of schisra being removed the whole Church might 
“be kept one, and, resting on its foundation, might stand firm 
“against the gates of hell. 


“But since in this very age, in which the salutary efficacy of 


From a Letter of S. Bernard to Pope Innocent II. a.p. 1130. Epist. zgr, vol. iv. 
P- 433, Paris edition of 1742, 
e Luke xxii. 32. See also the Acts of the Sixth General Council, a.p. 680. Labbé, 
Vol, ii, p. 6595 


ae 


é 


sé 


cé 


66 


66 


66 


66 


THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 555 


the Apostolic office is most of all required, not a few are 
found who take away from its authority, we judge it 
altogether necessary solemnly to assert the prerogative 
which the only-begotten Son of God vouchsafed to join 
with the supreme pastoral office. 

“Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received 
from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory 
of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic Relig- 
ion, and the salvation of Christian people, the Sacred 
Council approving, We teach and define that it isadogma 
divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he 
speaks ex cathedrd, that is, when in discharge of the office 
of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his 
supreme Apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regard- 
ing faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, 
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, 
is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine 
Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for 
defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that 
therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irre- 
formable* of themselves, and not from the consent of the 
Church. 

‘But if anyone—which may God avert—presume to con- 
tradict this our definition ; let him be anathema. 

Given at Rome in Public Session solemnly held in the 
Vatican Basilica in the year of Our Lord One thousand 
eight hundred and seventy, on the eighteenth day of 
July, in the twenty-fifth year of our Pontificate.”’ 


* 7.e, in the words used by Pope Nicholas I. note 13, and in the Synod of Quedlinburg, 


A.D. 1085, ‘it is allowed to none to revise its judgment, and to sit in judgment upon 
what it has judged.’? Labbé, vol. xii. p. 679. 


CHAPLEREXY, 


THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION. 


1.° We have often had occasion, in the course of these 
volumes, to point out that Christianity in general and the 
Catholic Church in particular have been most ‘influential 
factors in civilizing the world. It is for the Church historian 
to trace Christianity in its course and drift, and to guage the 
impress that its preaching and _ practice have left on public life 
and private morals. Still, without trespassing on his province, 
et may not be out of place here to focus the main principles, at 
least in so far as they bear on the foregoing chapters. The 
more modern civilization proves itself ungrateful towards the 
mother that bore her, the more strenuously should the apologist 
exert himself to show that no other religion has exercised such 
mighty civilizing influence as Christianity. Its chief influence 
lay in the direction of mind and will, that is to say, of 
intellectual and moral progress, both of which, especially the 
latter, are mo.t closely bound up with the great social problem, 
And first we shall consider the social and moral life of the. 
early Christians, which, from the very first, standing in marked 
contrast to the lives of Jew and Gentile, exercised a deep and 
lasting influence on the centuries that followed. How 
applicable are our Lord’s words: “ By their fruits ye shall 
“know them!” It is the Christian life that has extorted most 
admiration from the heathen. ‘The Greeks,” says S. John 
Chrysostom, “do not judge of the truth of Christianity by its 
“dogmas, but they measure Christian dogmas by the standard 


THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION. 557 


“of Christian life. Thus women and slaves instruct others by 
“leading godly lives.” } 

2. The civilizing power of religion in general was recog- 
nized by all the ancients. They were fully persuaded that 
religion was capable of sustaining the entire social fabric of 
family and State, It was the arbiter of right, the teacher of 
morals, and the guide of life. The gods ruled all affans of 
State. They were the guardians and protectors of the Common- 
wealth, and the Commonwealth proved itself worthy of their 
protection by the measure in which it did their bidding. 
Frosperity or adversity hung trembling in the balance of 
obedience to the laws of the gods. Thus Caecilius in M. Felix 
singles out the temples and shrines of the gods as being at 
once the glory and the safeguard of the Roman Empire.? 
Hence, in the teeth of such an overwhelming agreement 
among the nations, it was reputed a crime against humanity to 
attempt either to overthrow or to impair a belief in the gods 
that was so salutary and so beneficial, and that had such a 
prestige of antiquity in its favour. Among the nations of the 
East, Church and State were knitted together in still closer 
bonds. Great empires as well as individual tribes and cities 
were conscious of being under the wing of the gods whom they 
most delighted to honour. And this consciousness was the 
fountain-head whence they drew their martial prowess and 


patience in enduring hardships. 


But nowhere was religion so intimately bound up with the 
State as among the Israzlites. The pivot on which their whole 


* polity and constitution turned was Jahve’s Law. They were 


linked to their God by a sacred covenant which assured them 
victory over their enemies, and undisturbed possession of the 
promised land, if only they fulfilled their part in the covenant. 
In Israel the Theocracy was not an empty name but a living 
reality: God dwelt in the midst of His people, and enriched 
them with every blessing. 


z Chrysostom. Hom. Ephes. 22. 
2 Octav. c. 7. 


558 THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION. 


3. But neither the false religions of the heathen nor even 
the true, but imperfect, religion of Israel were able to regenerate 
the world. To heal the woes and miseries of mankind a new 
covenant, a nobler religion, was needed. That religion is 
Christianity and the Spirit of God. It alone goes to the root of the 
evil. Embracing all peoples and classes without distinction it 
brings redemption from error, sin, and death; it sets before all 
the life to come as their true end; it views thislife as a 
stepping-stone to eternity, and eart'ly goods as a means for 
laying up treasures in heaven, and thus overcomes the base 
charms of sensual enjoyment, and plants in the hearts of mena 
new and indestructible principle of life, divine charity. (Rom, 
v. 25). The Incarnation of the Son of God has changed the 
face of the eaith; the very name of its founder, Jesus (Savicur, 
Redeemer) suggests the deliverance of mankind from the 
bondage of sin, death, and devil. By His example He has 
taught us in the most beautiful way how to sanctify our lives. He 
was meak and humble, and emptied Himself, taking the form of 
a servant. Hecalled none of this world’s goods His own, for 
He had not whereon to lay His head. And yet He healed the 
sick, fed the hungry, and comforted the sorrowful. He spoke 
as one having power, and His words struck a chord in the 
heart of suffering humanity. From sheer love of men He 
chose to suffer, to be persecuted, and put to a most cruel 
death. Jew and gentile united to strike Him down. But He. 
who was thus killed, in the simple words of the Apostle, was the 
Author of Life (Acts iii., 15 1), and the cross became hence- 
forth the tree of life to mankind. All eyes would now be 
turned to Calvary (John xix. 37), thither all hearts be drawn 
for ever more (John xii. 2: 

4. With justice, then, Jesus could say: My Kingdom is 
not of this world. So, in like manner, He could require His 
disciples to be steadfast and patient when the world hated and 
persecuted them, as it had hated and persecuted Him before 
them. And as He was offering up Himself in sacrifice in order 


i 


THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION. 559 


to purchase for all life divine and joy everlasting, He could 
declare the poor, the mourners, and the persecuted to be 
blessed, because theirs is the kingdom of heaven. To the sick 
of this world He could impart the lesson they needed, while 
reminding His poor disciples not to be solicitous for meat and 
drink and raiment, and still less heaping up treasures which 
rust and moth consume and which thieves break into and 
steal. ‘Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His just ce, 
“and all these things shall be added unto you.” Should they 
already possess earthly riches, they are to use the mammon of 
iniquity to gain treasure in heaven by succouring their neigh- 
bour in his need for God’s sake. 

5. The disciples and the faithful generally imitated the 
example of Jesus, and put in practice His teaching. Deriv- 
ing superior strength from faith, and fixing their gaze on the 
world to come, they could afford to disregard the uncertain 
hazards of life. They evinced their Christian charity by their 
good deeds in lending a helping hand to the unforiunate, and 
to those in bodily and spiritual distress. The faithful gloried 
in tribulation, ‘ knowing that tribulation worketh patience, and 
“patience trial, and trial hope, and hope confoundeth not” 
(Rom. v. 3-5). They accounted the sufferings of this life as 
nothing, as not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, 
that shall be revealed in us (Rom. viii. 17-18): for that 
“ which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation 
“worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight 
“ of glory” (2 Cor. iv. 17). With light hearts the Apostles left 
all and followed Christ, neither had the primitive Christians 
anything of their own. They had but one heart and one soul ; 
neither did any one say that aught of the things which he 
possessed was his own. They were mindful of the Lord’s 
words: “ Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy.” 
And hereby they were imitating their Father in heaven who is 
merciful. Their reward shall be great in heaven, and they 
shail be called the sons of the Highest. (Luke vi. 35-36). 


560 THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION, 


When the neglect of widows gave rise to dissattsfaction at 
Jerusalem, deacons were appointed for the special purpose of 
ministering to the poor (Acts vi. r seq). S. Paul, who main- 
tained himself by the work of his hands, ordered collections to 
be made in all the Churches he had founded, for the poor in 
Jerusalem. He also urged the faithful in the several Churches 
to esteem and support one another. And he rebuked the 
Corinthians for not keeping the Agape or love-feasts in 
common. “Everyone taketh before his own supper to eat, 
“and one indeed is hungry, and another is drunk . . . Do 
“you put them to shame that have not?” (I. Cor. xi. 21-22). 
He admonishes the Romans to communicate to the necessities 
of the saints, pursuing hospitality. (Rom. xii. 13). He bids 
Timothy: “Charge the rich of this world not to be high- 
“minded, nor to trust in the uncertainty of riches, but in the 
“living God who giveth us abundantly all things to enjoy : to 
“do good, to be rich in good works, to give easily, to com- 
“municate to others: to lay in store for themselves a good 
“foundation against the time to come that they may lay hold 
“on the true life.” (I Tim. vi. 17-19). The author of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews writes thus: ‘Let the charity of the 
“brotherhood abide in you; and hospitality do not forget, for 
-“by this some, not being aware cf it, have entertained angels. 
“Remember them that are in bonds, as if you were bound 
“with them, and them that labour, as being yourselves also in 
“the body.” ‘And do not forget to do good, and to impart, 
“for by such sacrifices God’s favour is obtained.” (Heb. xiil. 
| I-3, 16). St. James, when proving that faith cannot save us 
without good works, brings forward as an instance the use- 
essness of fine words to relieve distress, unless accompanied 
by kind deeds. “He,” says S. John, “that hath the sub- 
“stance of this world, and shall see his brother in need, and 
“shall put up his bowels from him: how doth the charity of 


3 I. Cor. xvi. 1, 2; II. Cor. viii. 145 ix. 5. 


THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION. 561 


“God abide in him? My little children, let us not love in 
word, vor in tongue, but in deed and in truth.” (I John iii. 
17-18). 

6 The most wretched and abject class of poor were 
SLAVES, who swarmed not only in the East, but also among 
Greeks and Romans, and even among the Germans. They 
were not accounted as men, but as implements, chattels, and 
beasts, stamped in their nativity to bear the yoke. Their 
physical and moral wretchedness clamoured to heaven for 
vengeance. So hard was the condition of the slave that one 
year of slavery would suffice to thrust him into the rank 
of a veterator, that is to say, to cast him among the heap of 
worn-out ware. The least offence might entail loss of life or 
limb. He was subject to the most unnatural outrages. 
Husbands were torn away from their wives, children from their 
parents. Where were they to look for comfort in their misery, 
or for strength to endure their sufferings? Not in the religion 
of their masters. The hearts of men were closed against 
them. The asylums and sanctuaries erected in their favour 
hardly produced a passing mitigation in their hard lot. A 
master, like Pliny, who treated his slaves humanely, was a 
phenomenon.® Those who treated them with every refinement 
of cruelty were far more numerous. Slaves were even thrown 
as food for fishes! Yet Christianity was able to deal with the 
inveterate canker that had been gnawing at the vitals of the 
whole social life of those times. It strove to elevate these 
unhappy beings spiritually and morally, to temper their harsh 
lot, and gradually to abolish slavery as a blot on Christianity 
and a disgrace to mankind. Nor was the manner in which 
Christianity accomplished this great social revolution less 
admirable. On the one hand the Apostles exhorted slaves, for 
the love of God, and in the hope of an eternal reward, to bear 
their hard lot with patience, and to be faithful even to cruel and 


4 Mbdhler, p. 72. 
5 Ep. iii. 19; viii. 163 ix. 21. Humbolt, Kosmos iti. 24. 


562 THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION, 


froward masters; on the other hand, they entreated and — 
enjoined on masters to consider their slaves as brethren in 
Christ, since all had been redeemed by the same precious 
blood of Jesus Christ. Only when society had been pene- 
trated with the spirit of Christianity, could slavery as an 
institution be wholly abolished without danger of a social 
revolution. But it was owing to the Christian spirit that a 
great portion of mankind recovered their full human rights 
and dignity, and domestic life was established on a new 


basis. 

"‘ Let everyone,’’ says S. Paul, ‘‘ abide in the same call- 
“ing in which he was called. Wast thou called, being a 
‘‘ bond-servant ? care not for it; but if thou mayest be 
““made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the 
‘Lord, being a bondman, is the freeman of the Lord. 
‘‘ Likewise, he that is called, being free, is the bondman 
of Christ. You are bought with a price, be not made 
‘‘ the bond-slaves of men. Brethren, let every man where- 
‘in he was called, therein abide with God”’ (t Cor. vii. 20- 
24). “‘ For in the Spirit were weall baptised into one body, 
‘ whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free ; and in 
‘ one Spirit we have all been made to drink”’ (x Cor. xii. 13). 
‘' There is neither Jew nor Greek ; there is neither bond nor 
‘‘ free ; there is neither male nor female ; for youareall one 
jet Christ ajesnse u(Gal-> iis 38s kseas Gol mit. If). “os Sen 
““vants, be obedient to them that are your lords according 
‘to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the simplicity of 
your heart, as.to Christ. 4 witha good will serving, as 
‘to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatsoever 
‘good thing any man shall do, the same shall he receive 
‘from the Lord, whether he be bond or free.’” They 
have the highest example in Christ, who, although Him- 
self innocent, suffered for sinners, Christian slaves are 
exhorted to account their masters worthy of all hon- 
our, lest the name of the Lord and His doctrine be blas- = 
phemed. They that have believing masters, let them not 


6 Eph, vi. 5-8. Col. iii. 22. I, Peter ii. 18. 


| 


THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION, 553 


despise them because they are brethren, but serve them the 
rather, because they are faithful.7 

Nor is the Apostle more sparing in his admonitions to 
masters. ‘And you masters, do the same thing unto them, 
“ forbearing threatenings, knowing that the Lord both of them 
“and of you is in Heaven, and there is no respect of persons 
“with Him” (Eph. vi. 9; Col. iv. 1). A clear insight into 
the effect of the Christian spirit on the wretched social 
condition of the times is afforded us by the touching epistle of 
S. Paul to Philemon. Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, writes 
to Philemon, his beloved disciple and felliow-labourer, and 
after calling to mind his charity and faith in the Lord, 
intercedes with him on behalf of Onesimus, ‘‘ whom he had 
“begotten in bonds.” Onesimus was Duilemon’s runaway 
slave, w’om Paul had conserted in Rome. Paul would 
willingly have kept him with him that he might in the place 
of his master minister to him in the bonds of the Gospel; 
but without the master’s consent he would do nothing, “that 
“the good deed might not be as it were of necessity, but 
“voluntary. For perhaps he therefore departed for a seson 
“from thee, that thou mightest receive him again for ever: not 
‘as a servant, but instead of a servant, a most dear brother, 
“especially tome. But how much more to thee in the flesh 
“and in the Lord? If, t'erefore, thou count me a partner, 
“receive him as myself. And if he hath wronged thee in 
“anything, or is in thy debt, put that to my account. I, Paul, 
“have written it with my own hand: I will repay it; not to 
“say to thee, that thou ‘“owest me thy own self also. Yea. 
“brother, may I enjoy thee in the Lord. Refresh my bowels 
“in the Lord. Trusting in thy obedience, I have written to 
“thee: knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say” 
(Philemon 14-21). 

4. Thus Christianity enunciated the principles by which 
the gloomy hideous life of the ancient world was to be 


7 Tim. vi.1,2 Tit. ii. g 


564 THE CHURCH AND .CIVILIZATION. 

gradually transformed. In the heathen world sympathy 
with suffering, and charity to the poor, were unknown. 
The attempts which it was constrained to make towards 
alleviating the most frightful misery were utterly inade- 
quate. The few attempts made in Greece and Rome to 
care for the poor cannot compare, either in comprehensive- 
ness or in motive, with the works of Christian charity. 
They were essentially for giving State support to citizens 
incapacitated from work, and for distributing free supplies 
of corn to the poor. In the reigns of Nerva and Hadrian 
spasmodic efforts were made to establish schools for the 
education of foundlings. » The col/egia or brotherhoods were 
partly supposed to care each for his own poor. No one in 
the vast Roman empire dreamed of alms-houses or hos- 
pitals. 

How different was the action of the Christian Church. 
The care of the sick and poor, from religious motives, 
for God’s sake, was a Christian work in which every 
Christian community was occupied. Widows and or- 
phans, the poor and the sick, were tended and supported 
as redeemed in Christ, and made comformable to him 
in suffering. The heathen, who treated poverty with con- 
tempt, and closed their eyes to the wretchedness of 
their fellow-men, frequently flung in the teeth of Chris- 
tians the taunt that none but the outcasts and scum of 
society and credulous women were found to listen to 
their teaching.’ Tertullian goes so far as to say that 
there was hardly a rich man in the house of God. Con- 
sequently poverty and distress found a place of refuge 
in the Christian Church. Besides receiving relief for their 
bodily wants, the unfortunate pariahs of society learnt how 
to bear their wrongs patiently, for they felt that they were 
redeemed, elect, and brethren. How those blunted dead- 
ened hearts must have beat with joy when they learnt 
that even they were the object of that preeminently Chris- 
tian virtue of brotherly love, and that God the Son had 
shed His blood even for them! ‘‘ As for your gibe,”’ says 


8 M. Felix, Octav.c. 8; 16. 


THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION. 565 


Octavius, “that the majority ef us are poor, this is no disgrace, 
“but an honour. For as the soul is enervated by luxury, so it 
“fis made strong by frugality. But how can the man be poor 
“who wants for nothing, who covets not his neighbour’s goods, 
“who is rich in God? We had sooner despise earthly goods 
“than possess them. We prefer innocence; we pray first for 
patience ; we had rather be good than spendthrifts.” 9 

8. The self-sacrifice of the unassuming Christians was alt 
the greater on account of their poverty. Tertullian gives a 
striking description of it. On a certain day of the month, or 
when he pleases, each one contributes his small offering. 
There is no obligation, but each one makes his contribution 
willingly. 

Writing from his place of exile, S. Cyprian exhorts priests 
and deacons not to allow either the poor and needy or the 
glorious confessors in prison to suffer want. The substance 
of the clergy is simply the patrimony of the poor, of widows 
and orphans. And what S. Cyprian preached to others, he 
practised faithfully himself. -He disposed of his own pos- 
sessions in favour of the poor and oppressed. All the 
fathers of the Church wrote and acted in like manner. All 
the Churche’s ordinances in regard to the poor are pitched in 
the same key. Eusebius has preserved in an Easter letter of 
Dionysius of Alexandria (d. 264) a beautiful passage in which 
the conduct of the Christians during a plague is contrasted 
with that of the heathen who left the sick to die unaided and 
uncared for like dogs. Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of 
Nyssa have both delivered discourses on love for the poor. 
Those of the former are specially interesting to the student of 
the history of Ecclesiastical Charity. He addressed his 
audience as “ My brethren and fellow poor, for we are indeed all 
“beggars, and stand in need of God’s grace.” After describing 


9 M. Felix, c. 36. Tat., Cohk.c. 11. Tert., Afol. c. 3g 
30) -/f,,.V., 171; Xil,, 25 X1V-, 2. 
tr Euseb., A.&. vil. 22, 


566 THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION. 


the several Christian virtues he goes on to say that no worship 
is so pleasing to God as mercy and charity for the poor. }? It 
was a recognized rule that the Church's possessions were 
destined for the support of the poor. ‘Let men consider,” 
“says S. Ambrose, “what prisoners the Church has set free, 
“what food she has given to the poor, and what outcasts she 
has provided with the necessaries of life.”13 Ambrose’s life and 
work are a testimony to the unselfish devotion of bishops 
to the works of mercy. His care for-the sick and the poor is 
eloquently described by his biographer Paulinus. Again, we 
are filled with emotion as we read a letter of Theodoret of 


Cyprus in which he adjures Pope Leo not to turn a deaf ear . 


to his piteous appeal for protection, nor to despise his grey 
hairs which many labours had so ill-used. “For,” said he, 
“during my long episcopate, I have never acquired extra 
“houses, or land, or money, or even six feet of earth for a 
“grave , but of my own free choice I became poor, having 
“distributed my paternal inheritance after the death of my 
“parents.” 14 

9 According to the Canons of Hippolytus, the bishop has 
charge of the poor. The Apostolic Constitutions likewise enjoin 
on the bishop care for widows and orphans. He is to distribute 
the offerings of the faithful, and he will have to render to God 
an account of his stewardship in this matter. On him more 
than others are incumbent the works of mercy. “ You, bishops, 
“must have care of them (orphans), and see that they are not 
‘wanting in anything; you must be parents to orphans, 
“husbands to widows; you must assist the adult to marry, 
“procure work for the artist, and succour the disabled; 
“you must offer hospitality to the stranger, procure bread for 
“the hungry, drink for the thirsty, clothes for the naked ; you 

“must visit the sick and relieve the prisoners.16 The Synod 
12 Ep. xiv. (xii.), 5. 
13 Ef. xviii. 16. 


14 £>. inter epp. Leonis liii. 6 
15 iv. 2, 3; iii. 3, 4; ii. 4,25, 27 Hipp., Caz. 25, 3%. 


Ti 
Set 


THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION. 567 


of Orange held in §r1 decreed (c. 16): “The bishop shall 
‘provide the sick and poor, who are incapacitated from work, 
“‘ with food and clothing, as far as it is in his power.” A portion of 
the goods of the Church was to be alloited to widows. When 
it was a question of relieving the distress of the poor or of 
ransoming captives not even the sacred vessels of the Church 
were spared. 

In order to give wider scope and application and greater 
efficiency to the works of mercy, the Christian bishops made 
early attempts at organisation of charity by establishing hos- 
pitals and almshouses, as S. Basil in Cesarea. Gregory 
Nazianzen paid a touching tribute to his memory in the 
funeral discourse. ‘Go a little way outside the city aad 
“behold a new city, an emporium of piety—a common 
“storehouse, where, at his command, the rich have gathered up 
“of their superfluous substance and the poor have given up 
‘their mite . . . where sickness is suffered with patience, 
“ where misfortune is welcomed and mercy put to the test.” 
Those who have read the same saint’s powerful description of 
the lepers in his sermon on the poor will be able to appreciate 
the winged words in the funeral oration. What are all the 
splendid works of the ancients, with their egotistical pride and 
icy-cold hearts, when weighed in the balance with these palaces 
for the poor? The establishment of houses for the poor and 
for strangers was mentioned at the Synod of Chalcedon. The 
Synod of Tours (567) ordered every city to make provision 
for the poor. Gregory the Great took active measures, both 
by his personal action and by his decrees, for providing for 
the poor. 16 

10 That Christian charity hal produced a _ powerful 
impression on heathen society is attested by Julian the 
Apostate. In his opinion the Godless religion owed its growth 
and expansion to three causes : its practical charity, its care for 


15 Sce Kirchenlexicon, 2 Ed. i. 1,360, where the modern literature on the subject is 
given. Kraus, Real-Encycl. ii. gg1. HergensS:her, Kirchengesch. 1. 637, 820. 


568 THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION. 


death, and what he is pleased to call its hypocritical sancti 
moniousness of life. Wherefore he called upon the heathen to 
emulate the Christian in feeding the poor and in estab‘ishing 
hospitals. The State furnished the means, but private bounty 
was also to be enlisted in the cause. !7 

rt, The wider Christianity spread and the more it pene- 
trated with its spirit the masses and classes of men, the greater 
and more flourishing became the work of Christian cuarity. 
The rise of monasteries marks a new epoch in this respect. 
They became the homes of the poor. For not only did a poor 
man never knock in vain at the monastery door, but the: 
monasteries frequently maintained poor-houses, hospices and 
schoois. In these works, Benedictines, Cistercians and Pre- 
monstratensians vied with one another. Mcreover, mumerous 
guilds or brotherhoods were establishcd which devoted them. 
selves in an especial manner to ministering to the sick and the 
poor, eg. the brothers of the Holy Ghust, the brothers’ of 
S. Antony, the sisters of S. Elizabeth, the Beguines, the 
Teutonic order and the knights S. John, the Lazarists, 
Alexians, Trinitarians, the congregations of Peter Nolascus, 
Kalendar, the Humiliates, and Jesuates. In modern times it 
is suffi ient to point to S. Vincent of Paul The orders of 
sisters of charity founded by him, as well as several kindred 
orders of mercy, especially the Little Sisters of the Poor, are 
to this day doing a good work in all countries of the world, 
and particularly among the English speaking racés. ‘The 
Reformation, on the other hend, destroyed many monasteries, 
confiscated the goods of the poor, and handed them over to the 
rich, The poor were deprived of their asyiums, and the un- 
selfish exercise of Christian charity and brotherly devotion was 
rendered impossibie. In England, acco: ding to Dollinger, 18 
the Reformation was *ha triumph of the rich over the poor, of 
capital over the rights of labour. 


\ 


17° Ef. xlix. See Schultze, Geschichte des Untergangs des Gricchish-Rémischen 
fleidenthums. Jena 1887, p. 164. 
18 Kirche, p. 20. 


THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION. 59g 


12, The Church, though tenderly solicitous for the poor, 
cannot be accused of encourazing indolence and sloth. On the 
contrary, as Christianity ennobled and elevated into a duty the 
labour which Greeks and Romans had despised and handed 
over to slaves, so the Church strove to relieve the poor by in- 
ducingt hem to work. The example of Christ who is called “ the 
carpenter,” and “the carpenter’s son,” was not lost on Christians. 
(Mark vi. 3). Nor could they forget the example and teaching 
of S. Paul. He lays it down as a cardinal principle of practical 
Christianity : “If any man will not work, neither let him eat.” 
(II Thessal. iii. 10). He supported himself, on his missionary 
journeys, by working as a tent-maker. The first and chief duty 
he imposes on each one is to set his own household in order, 
and to care for his own. Only the genuine poor are to receive 
relief, (I Tim. v. 43 viii. 16), Ana it is enacted in the 
Apostolic Constitutions: “If a glutton or a drunkard or an 
“idler ask for support, he is as undeserving of relief, as he is of 
“the Church’s fellowship.” !9 Boys should be provided with 
sufficient means for learning a trade, lest they be burdensome to 
their relatives, and impose on their good nature. ‘The fathers 
often protest against the misdirected benevolence that relieves 
loafers and vagrants. “Let this be your tule,” says S. 
Ambrose, “ to be humane, and at the same time not to rob the 
truly poor.” 20 The objection that Christianity was detrimen- 
tal to public interests, is not new. As early as Tertullian it was 
thrown in the face of Christians generally, and he well parries 
the thrust.?! 

It was the example set by Christians, and the dignity 
imparted to labour by religion, that went far towards making 
the poor reconciled with their hard condition. The monks, 
while converting forests into arable land, learning trades, and 
spreading civilization, were at the same time teaching youth to 


19 ii. 43 iv. 2 
20 De Offic. ii. 16. Aug-. Ep. xcitie 
at Afol. c. 42. 


570 THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION, 


labour, and affording opportunities for agriculture, and 
for the practice of trade and art. The monts de pitté—a 
kind of savings bank and pawn-shop—instituted in Italy 
in the middle ages, were intended to prevent the plunder 
of the poor, and to secure them a fair wage for their 
labour. By this equitable adjustment of the balance be- 
tween labour and capital, and by the status given to labour 
as a moral and religious duty imposed on man, social dis- 
tress was in great measure either averted or considerably 
allayed. | 

13. Thus the spirit of Christianity set a religious zeal on 
political economy, and on the whole industrial system. 
Wealth and profit were looked upon not as an end, but as 
a means ; not as the summum bonum, but as God’s gift to 
enable man to attain heaven. The crude utilitarianism of 
the ancients, and more particularly of the Romans, had, 
in time of the Czsars, become a hideous excrescence, suck- 
ing the very life-blood out of the people, and draining the 
nation of prosperity. The one end of the common people 
seemed to be to pay taxes without limit, to till the soil for 
the Emperor and his officials, and to minister to the com- 
fort and luxury of the rich nobles. This shameful plunder- 
ing of the provinces, coupled with public calamities, had 
raised the distress and discontent of the great mass of the 
population to the highest pitch. Christianity, though un- 
able to put an end to the prevalent distress all at once, suc- 
ceeded in making prosperity revive to a certain extent in 
the empire. Subsequently the cities of Italy rose to great 
power, wealth, and magnificence, owing to their commerce 
and the culture of fine arts. The Hanseatic League of Ger- 
man cities enjoyed increasing prosperity. Spain, after a 
long, wearisome struggle, succeeded in wresting her beauti- 
ful country from the Moors. France developed into a 
powerful kingdom, with almost inexhaustible resources. 
Of course material progress is not perpetual and infinite, 
Development itself is subject to the law of youth, man- 
hood, and old age. All nations must go through this 


THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION, 571 


periodic course of development; but it lies in their power 
either to prolong the course of progress, or to hasten the 
process of dissolution. Much, and perhaps everything, will 
depend on their moral and religious condition. The great 
discoveries of modern times have given an enormous impetus 
to industry and commerce; but there can hardly be any 
question that prosperity and contentment have diminished, 
and that pauperism and distress are on the increase. The 
progress made in the comforts of life has been more than 
counterbalanced by the terrible results of modern political 
economy. ‘The ferocious passion for wealth, and an insane 
system of competition, have reduced millions of men to the 
degraded condition of mere machines. It cannot be urged 
enough that worldliness and materialism are at the root of 
the evil. A return to the Christian ideal is the ou!y remedy 
both for employer and employed, for the capitalist and the 
labourer. It is remarkable, too, that progress is confined to 
Christian peoples. Neither Asia, nor other countries domi- 
nated by the Crescent, have any share in it. America was 
civilized by the Western Christianity. Australia and Africa 
are led by the same hand. | 

14. The Church could not have abolished slavery all at 
once and in principle without shaking society to its foundations, 
and inflicting untold misery on the slaves themselves. She 
was bound to carry out the doctrine laid down by S. Paul. But 
she cleared the way for its gradual abolition by opening her 
gates to those wretched beings, and by striving to make them 
spiritually and morally free, Heedless of the scoffs and gibes 
of the heathen, Christians confess “that their aim is to train 
‘all men in the word, although Celsus is opposed to their so 
“doing. Accordingly we teach slaves how to awaken within 
“themselves nobler sentiments, and thus to be made free 
“through the word.”22 Thus Christianity succeeded in the 
work which heathenism had declared to be impossible. Many 


22 Orig., C. Cels. iii. 44. See Mohler, ii. 83, 


572 THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION. 


slaves were converted into virtuous Christians, and armed with 
pauence and fortitude proved themselves worthy followers uf 
Christ amid all the dangers and difficulties fhat encompassed 
them. Not a few became saints and martyrs. How many, 
too, of whom the world has not heard suffered martyrdom in 
the houses of their masters and mistresses! 

Vhe Church exhorted Christian masters to treat their slaves 
as brothers and Christians, and recommended their manumission 
as a work most pleasing to God.” For as slavery sprung from 
sin (Ham), redemption. from sin necessarily entailed. the 
abolition of slavery. ‘The sinner is thé only slave; those who 
are morally born again are free and noble. Hence masters, 
when converted, gladly gave liberty to their slaves, in order to 
celebrate the feasts of the Lord with pomp and splendour, 4 
Hermes, Prefect of Rome in the reign of Trajan, was con- 
verted with his wife and children and: 3,250 slaves. On 
Kaster-day, when they were baptized, he gave them their civic 
frecdom, and also the means to enable them to make use of 
their privilege, It is related by Salvian that slaves were daily 
receiving the rights of Roman, citizens, and that they were free 
to take with them what they had earned as slaves in the houses 
of their masters.*® The Church also encouraged these manu- 
missions by allowing them to take place within the sacred 
precincts ; by practically obliterating the distinction of class or 
rank, and by opening her offices to all alike, although due 
regard for the existing order imposed upon her the duty of a 
certain amount of discretion. In the Eastern empire the 
Greek monasteries worked particularly hard for the abolition of 
slavery. To keep slaves, they declared, was unworthy of man. 
S. Chrysostom delivered discourses to this effect. He wished 
Christians to be their own servauts, even as Christ suffered not 


23 Ignat., Ad Polye.c. 4. Chrys., Homil. S. Lazar. c.73; In Ep. t. ad Cor. xl. §. 
Ad Efphes. xxi. Ambros., De Abrah. Aug., De Civ. Dei xix. 15. Gelas., Ep 
xiv. 14, 20. See Hefeie, Conciliengesch. i. 157, 173) 78% 3 ii. 63+ 

24 Gregor. Nyss., Orat. in Resurr. iii. 

25 Ad L£ecl. Cath. iit.7. See Mohler, p. 92, 104. 


es. 


C—O 


a i i i 


ee 


THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION. Vis 


others to minister to him, or at any rate to keep only such 
servants as were necessary ; but in no case to keep a num- 
ber of slaves for show. Later on slaves were to be found 
in the monasteries and with priests ; but they were gently 
treated and were set free on very easy terms. In the time 
of S. Louis most of the episcopal sees in the Frankish em- 
pire were filled by manumitted slaves. Ebbo, Archbishop 
of Rheims, the first prelate in the kingdom, was a bond- 
man by birth. To the Middle Ages belongs the eases 
of abolishing slavery proper. By the twelfth century slave 
had disappeared from the Christian States of Europe 

15. The ancients would never have effected such a com- 
plete transformation of the whole social order. Nay, they 
never even made the attempt. Rather, as time went on, 
the slavery actually existing everywhere became more and 
more inhuman and cruel. Philosophers and statesmen had 
set to work in sober earnest to build up the whole social 
fabric, on the distinction made by nature between masters 
and servants. Only a few stray voices spoke in a different 
strain. The Christian Emperors—foremost among then 
Constantine and Justinian—supported the Church in her 
efforts to ameliorate the condition of the slaves: the latter 
by punishing all wilful killing of a slave as murder, and by 
forbidding the Jews to detain Christian slaves ; the former 
by doing away with the legal restrictions on manumission, 
by facilitating marriage, and admitting the manumitted to 
full civil rights. Such cruel punishments as crucifixion and 
branding on the forehead were forbidden. Slaves, too, 
were to have the benefit of the Sabbath rest 

16. Islam gave slavery anew lease of life. Many Chris- 
tians, taken prisoners in war, were carried into slavery by the 
Mahommedans;; others were sold by jewish or Christian 
slave-dealers to heathens or Mahommedans. The Church © 
fought against this evil. She strove to stir up the secular 


26 See Article by Kober in Theol. Quart. 1858, p. 443. Hefele, ii. 82, 84, 781, 638, 652, 
683; ili. 40, 355. HergenrOther, ii. 577, 788. 


574 THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION, 


powers to undertake expeditions to liberate the Christian 
slaves,*7 and sought to effect their ransom through the instru- 
mentality of her own orders. Unfortunately, with the advent 
of modern times, the detestable system has once more obtained 
a footing among Christian peoples. After the discovery of 
America, negro-slavery spread with frightful rapidity. Las 
Casas’ well-meant advice to spare the weak and sickly Indians, 
and to employ for hard labour those powerfully built, has had 
a fatal result. For three hundred years the slave-traffic has 
depopulated the coast of Western Africa. As Eugenius IV., 
Pius IT., Sixtus IV., Innocent VIIT., Leo X. had endeavoured 
to suppress slavery, so Paul III. (1537) took the human rights 
of the Indians and other heathens under his protection. 
Urban’ VIIT> (7639), “Benedict’ XIV.) (1741); Pros ee 
Gregory XVI. (1839), worked for the same end. In the 
Encyclical “Zn plurimts,” dated May 5th, 1883, Leo XIII. 
described the abolition of slavery in Brazil as the most 
welcome present he had received on the jubilee of his priest- 
hood. Missionaries—like the Jesuit Peter Claver—have 
devoted their lives to watching, with fatherly solicitude, over 
these unhappy beings. Provincial Councils urged upon 
masters the duty of treating them gently, and in particular 
secured for those who were married the right of living 
together. Thus the lot of slaves in the Catholic countries 
of the South was far better than that of the negroes in Africa. 
In the English Colonies of the North the lot of the slaves 
was incomparably harsher. Nevertheless, England has ren- 
dered yeoman’s service in the Slave Question. 

Leo XIII. took the opportunity of urging npon the European 
Powers to work for the abolition of slavery in such countries as 
Asia and Egypt. And, indeed, the accounts of the slave-traffic 
in the Soudan are heart-rending and blood-curdling. Yet 
Islam, as Mohler well remarks in the concluding portion of 


27 Hefele, iv. 588. Pastor. Geschichter der Papste i. 427. Kayser, Histor. Jahrb. 
1885, p. 208; 1887, p. 609. 


———=—— 


| 
| 
| 
, 


THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION, 575 


his essay on Slavery, has never dreamt to this day of raising a 
finger against this plague-spot of human civilization, 

17. Again, the position of woman and wife in ancient times 
was often very little better than that of female slaves, and in 
this respect non-Christian nations resemble Pre-Christian 
heathens. The Church, however, took the doctrine of Holy 
Scripture on the equality of woman ané@ the sanctity of family 
and married life and erected it into a maxim: Una Lex est de 
viris e¢ feminis. Marriage, invested with the sacramental bless- 
ing, has rights and duties, which are correlative. The end of 
marriage became mutual sanctification and the bringing 
children to heaven—a duty shamefully neglected by Greeks 
and Romans. Marriage might not be dissolved. Tidelity 
and chastity were held in high honour. Even second marriage 
was looked upon as a kind of incontinency. The detestable 
practice of abortion and the exposure of infants 8 were 
stringently condemned. The oldest Christian writings contain 
a prohibition against child-murder, either by procuring abortion 
or by infanticide. °® In Germany, too, the Church severely 
punishéd immorality. 9° It also inculeated on women their 
duties as Christian housewives. S. Chrysostom, for example, in 
words that would raise a blush to the cheeks, denounced the 
unworthy and cruel behaviour of mistresses to their female 
slaves, *! ‘The same Saint has also recorded how high, as a 
rule, Christian women stood in the estimation of their heathen 
neighbours, by reason of their continency and chastity. 82 ‘The 
reverse of the picture is given in Bottiger’s Sadina and Wise- 
man’s /aliola. The glimpse which they give into the home 
life of heathen women is by no means pleasant reading, 

The effects of this sanctification of family life on social and 
economic science cannot be appraised too highly. Both public ; 
28 D8llinger, He‘denthum und Judenthum, p. 691, 716. 

29 Doctr. Apost.c.2. Barn.c.2. Ep. ad Diogn.v.6. Just., Agol. i, 27. 
30 Theol. Quart. 1858, p. 453. 


31 ln Ep. aahe Esp. //om. xv. 3. 
33 Christian Apology, 11. chapter vil, 


576 THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION. 


and private life were ennobled. The social intercourse of men 
and women with one another could not but be governed by a 
gentler and nobler spirit, as S. Jerome’s letters to noble Roman 
ladies abundantly testify. This accession of dignity to the 
married state also healed the gaping wounds which lax morals 
had inflicted in Greece and Rome. Lasciviousness, adultery 
and slavery are largely responsivle for the devastation and 
depopulation of countries that were once flourishing. In this 
respect, too, the countries blighted by Islam render conspicuous 
by contrast the blessings that Christianity has brought in its 
train. » 

18. Legislation, too, became tempered with the same gentle 
spirit. The Church, especially by the Italian Law Schools 
(Bologna), not only propagated the knowledge of Roman Law 
in all the countries of Europe, and promoted its study for cen- 
turies, but it also infused its own spirit into civil law and 
legislation. This became more humane both in regard to 
justice, and to the treatment of prisoners and accused persons, 
No one will dream of applying to those early ages the standard 
of our advanced civilization ; still it is undeniable that the 
Christian penal code points distinctly to progress. Not only 
were prisoners better protected by law, but bishops were 
charged to visit and watch over the treatment of prisoners, 
and as far as possible, to release those unjustly imprisoned. 
Moreover, the Church’s right of asylum, and clerical inter- 
cession, enabled the persecuted to seek Church protection 
against unjust penalties, and to expiate their crimes not by the 
punishment they had deserved, but by a penitential and 
virtuous life. The attitude of St. Ambrose towards the Emperor 
Theodosius shews how great was the Church’s intercessory 
power. In like manner the Church strongly set herself against 
all those cruel and barbarous customs of the time, connected 
with war and lesser feuds, whether public or private; and by 
establishing the Truce of God | Zreuga Dei] secured peace for 
the unarmed, and at least some breathing time in warfare. In 


— | 


—- 


————— Se 


THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION. 577 


the struggles between rival parties and chieftains it was the 
Church alone which upheld God’s law and protected tne right. 
Not infrequently the popes were compelled to throw the whole 
weight of their authority into the scale against injustice and 
avarice, and toact as arbitrators in the most momentous questions. 
As exhorted by the Apostles, the bishops undertook at an early 
time the office of judges and arbitrators. They improved the 
Roman jurisprudence in many ways; and all through the 
Middle Ages they exerted a wholesome influence on civil and 
political controversies. As a result the entire jurisprudence 
began to be based on higher and milder principles and to be 
guided by gentler and nobler motives. ‘‘Law-books,” says Kober, 
“became in the same measure more humane, as the Church 
“had a share in framing them ; hence it was that those periods 
“in which the Church was politically in the ascendant, were 
‘always marked by more humane laws.” 83 The same may be 
said of the manner in which law-suits and criminal proceedings 
were Carried out. It was forbidden for both parties to take the 
oath, and perjurers were threatened with heavy ecclesiastical 
penalties. Ordeals, though retained, were as far as possible 
purged of heathenish elements, and gradually abolished. 
Duelling was forbidden. 

19. It is therefore true to say, that “it was the Christian 
‘religion and the Church which, like a mother, nursed Europe 
‘fin its childhood, saved it from savagery, and trained it for a 
‘more prosperous career.” Nothing but the compact organi- 
sation, and consequent power of the Catholic Church, com- 
manding universal respect, could have possibly saved 
Western Civilization from the havoc of the barbarians. The 
violent revolution, brought about by the wanderings of the 
nations, would never have issued into a settled and organized 
commonwealth without the influence of the Catholic Church. 
Without the Church, with the Pope at her head, Europe would 


33 Theol. Quart. 1.c. p. 483. Cencerning the Canon Law of S. Ambrose and his time, 
see Katholik 1888, i. 337. 


578 THE CHURCH, AND CIVILIZATION 


most certainly have relapsed into barbarism. Moreover the 
cause of civil liberty was ever championed by the Popes. They 
as chief pastors, were also the arbiters among contending 
peoples, and they set their face equally against the despotism 
of princes and the wanton rebellion of peoples. They alone 
swayed that moral power, which could touch the conscience of 
high and low, when divine and humaii laws were trail ng in the 
dust.°* It was the spirit of ecclesiastical liberty that helped the 
English to AZagna Charta. ‘The Church’s constitution served 
as a model for the constitution of States. The civil liberties 
possessed by the English in Catholic times, were mutilated and 
in a measure destroyed by the Reformation and the spirit of 
the Protestant State Church, and they were only won back by 
bloody wars undertaken by the partisans of the sects. In other 
countries, too, Protestantism strengthened tie power of the 
sovereign, to the detriment and suppression of the liberties of 
the people. In its later form and in its consequences, it could 
not he!p contributing to the restoratiou of political liberties. 

20. Social life has its foundation and its strength in the 
moral condition of society. ‘The goou tree brings forth good 
fruit, and the evil tree evil fruit. The moral transformation of 
a corrupt society was the most brilliant testimony to the divine 
power of the.Church and her retigion. On the several sides of 
the new life it imparted we have already dwelt.°® Belief in one 
God and Father of all men, and in Jesus Christ whom He sent, 
planted the love of God and of their neighbour in the hearts 
of men. Shame for sin, and love of virtue, and uprightness 
were the products of this faith. Mortification, self-denial, and 
humility, heretofore unknown virtues, after the example of the 
Crucified, inspired men and women, old and young, masters 
and slaves. By renouncing, for God’s sake, all the pleasures 
and comforts of life, and devoting their lives to the service of 
SANT Beli Guacs 1: cy phats@intontera ee 


35 Dollinger, Avsche p. 153. Janssen, ii. 5743 iti. ¥7- 
36 See Christian Apology, 11. chapter vii. 


THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION. 879 


their neighbours, many saved their fellow-men from being 
engulfed in the whirlpool of the world, and won them over to 
the cause of virtue and heaven. Ce/idacy in God’s service, in 
connection with voluntary poverty and brotherly love, have an 
ennobling effect alike on those who in obedience to a sacred 
call elect te follow the evangelical counsels, and those who are 
the object of their prayer and solicitude. Humility requires 
that Christian virtue, like the violet, should bloom mostly in 
secret; but the odour thereof can never be lost or mistaken. 
Christian grace 1s, as it were, a leaven, ever penetrating further 
and further, until it transforms the whole mass. ‘The process 
was slow and gradual, but nothing astonished the heathen 
more than the new virtuous lives led by the despised and 
persecuted Christians. The miracle that no heathen religion 
or philosophy could accomplish was worked by simple faith in 
Jesus Crucified: it rooted up the weeds of passion, planted 
the seed of virtue, and thus prepared for the great harvest 
of true civilization. 

21. The early Christian Apologists were not slow to avail 
themselves of these solid proofs for the truth of Christianity. 
We prefer to let some of them speak for themselves, instead of 
using arguments of our own. Thus Zasran, arguing against the 
Fatalists, says: ‘“‘ How can Tbelieve that birth is dependent on 
“fate, when T see how they were made (v.e., the gods) who guide 
“the reins of fate? I wish neither for power, nor for riches, 
“nor for office, and licentiousness I abhor. I do not go in 
“search of gold. I contend not for the laurel crown, and 
“from ambition Iam free. Death I despise, and I am above 
“all sickness. No sorrow vexes my spirit. If 1 am a slave, 
“TJ bear the yoke; if I am free I do not boast of my high 
“birth. I see there is one sun to shine on all alike, one death 
“for all, whether they live in ease or in sorrow.” Tertullian 
retorts sharply upon those who were loudest in decrying 
Christians as useless members of society. Who are they that 
bring forth this accusation? He answers: “ First come the 


580 THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION. 


‘‘ procurers and seducers of maidens, and all they that lay 
‘‘ temptations to sin ; next, assassins, poisoners and charm- 
“ers 3 lastly, soothsayers, fortune-tellers, and astrologers.”’ 
Any one,” says Mf. Felix, ‘‘ who compares us with you 
‘ will find that we are much better than you, although some 
‘of us may fall short of the standard prescribed for us. 
‘ You, for instance, forbid adultery, and commit it; weare 
“ faithful to our wives. You punish criminal deeds ; with 
‘us it is sinful even to think of anything criminal. You 
"’ dread an accomplice ; we fear nothing but our conscience, 
‘without which we cannot live. Lastly, the prisons are 
“filled from your ranks.. There is not one Christian in 
‘them, unless he is there on account of his religion, or is 
‘“an apostate.’’ He then goes on to sing the praises of 
Christian martyrdom. The Christian, he says, may seem 
miserable, but there is not a miserable Christian to be 
found. Weareall bornalike; virtue alone distinguishes us. 

22. All things have their lights and shadows: and the 
apologists have, at times, accentuated the one more than 
the other. Christianity could not wholly banish sin and 
passion. Even the Christians of the first centuries had 
to learn the consequences of original sin. Heresies, too, 
left their stamp on the morals of the second century, so 
much so that .S. Cyprian discerned in them signs that the 
end of the world was coming.* Nor were the forebodings 
of later Fathers less gloomy. Still Origen could say, not 
without reason, that the wickedest Christians were far bet- 
ter than many heathen—e.g¢. in Athens, Corinth, and Alex- 
andria. The rulers of the Church far surpassed secular 
rulers. A later Alexandrian Father, S. Athanasius, draws 
a sharp parallel between heathen immorality and Christian 
morals and civilisation. ‘‘ Christ daily impels us to fear 
God, and to practice virtue. He instructs us about immor- 
tal life, and makes us yearn for heaven. He unveils the 
knowledge of the Father, and gives us strength to bear up 
against death.”’ 


bd 


38 De Unit.c. 16. Orig. C. Cels. iii. 30, Athan., De Zncarn. c. 313 Ts 


THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION. 581 


When persecution ceased, and the State shielded the 
Church, the ranks of Christians were swelled by many who 
joined them for worldly rather than religious motives. The 
Greek and Latin Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries 
uttered loud and grievous complaints about the large number 
of bad Christians, who were a scandal to the heathen. The 
Churches, they say, are indeed crowded; but the theatres 
not less so. The number of those who tear the body of 
Christ defies computation. Anyone who did not know how 
many ears of corn have been gleaned, would suppose that all 
was chaff.s? ‘Who are the Church’s enemies? Jews and 
“heathens? Bad Christians are worse thanall . . . The 
*‘ bad, saith the Lord, live worse in my sacraments than those 
“who have never approached them. How many, through 
‘you, my brethren, would become Christians, did not the 
“pernicious morals of Christians repel theme” S$, Ephrem 
breaks out into bitter complaints against the immorality of 
Christians. And one can hardly read Salvian—the Christian 
Jeremias—without tears. Is it possible that the bride of 
Christ was really so defiled and dishonoured? Had the 
Catholic ‘‘Romans” in Italy, Gaul, and Africa sunk in a 
short time so low that the savage barbarian hordes had to be 
held up to them as models of virtue? Even here we must 
beware of being biassed and one-sided in our judgments, In 
these pictures there is undoubtedly a great deal of truth. The 
masses in the large towns were so eaten up with the corruption 
of heathen Rome, that they lacked the natural basis of moral 
reformation. The tribes from the North and East were as yet 
free from the taint of a corrupt civilisation. They were still 
the children of nature, simple in habits of life and conduct, 
though often very cruel. 

While the Church was winning over these powerful tribes to 
Christianity, and improving the wild trunk by grafting thereon 
Christian grace and truth, she eliminated the remnants of 


39 August. £x. ix Ps. xxx. s. ii, n. 33 


582 THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION, 


enervated Rome, and planted a healthier Christian spirit. The 
refinement of morals and manner was an arduous task, and of 
slow progress. Relapses were not wanting, but nothing could 
impede for long the workings of the Christian spirit. Even the 
Middle Ages were not altogether a Starlight night, but partly a 
period of stormy spiritual activity (of earnest religious piety and 
Christian charity, Still the whole of society was upborne on the 
spirit of Christianity), Piety was forcing its way into the upper 
and lower strata. In the Holy Roman Empire, despite its many 
contests, the Ecclesiastical power and the secular arm, though 
preserving their independence, were marvellously united. In 
all the relations of life, the spiritual and tempora! elements were 
blended together. The numerous religious orders, besides 
affording men an opportunity of consecrating their lives to God, 
were nurseries of science, piety, and culture. By preaching and 
instruction they left a powerful impress on morals. Anyone who 
dispassionately views the circumstances of the time, must con- 
cede that the spirit of Christianity had to contend with 
difficulties of immense magnitude, and was not found wanting. 
Where would mankind have been in those days of strain and 
Stress, without the Church? Who could have bridled the 
passions of the nobles, and levelled the savage Instincts of the 
masses? Who could have instilled piety and brotherly love 
and example P 

23*. As the moral condition of the world kas been con- 
tinuaily raised by the action of Christianity, so also has a 
continuous impulse been given to intellectual progress. Nor is 
this wonderful, since the intellectual effects of a religious 
system are in the closest connexion possible with the moral. 
Mind and will are naturally dependent one upon the other. 
Truth is the necessary basis of morality and virtue. In the 
language of the schools the will is uppetitus rationalts, that is to 
say, it is ever guided in what it desires or avoids, by the light 
of the intellect. The Church has never lost sight of this 
psychologicai fact. It underlies the whole controversy on 


THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION. 583 


grace and justification from Pelagius down to Luther. 
The order of grace is based upon the order of nature. In 
defending the order of supernatural truth and grace, the 
Church not only safeguards, to the fullest extent, the order 
of nature, but she likewise widens, perfects, and ennobles 
it. The list of Doctors and Saints to which the Church 
can point, as well as the great librarics of Europe, are a 
practical illustration of this truth. So again is that curi- 
ous phenomenon of history; we mean the affinity that 
sprang up spontaneously between the men of faith and the 
highest representatives of human reason, between Plato 
and the Fathers, Aristotle and the Schoolmen. It was 
faith that infused life and energy into reason and philoso- 
phy. These were of themselves incapable of regenerating 
and elevating mankind. When the Fathers spoke con- 
temptuously of Philosophy, they had in mind either this 
practical impotency of Philosophy, or the Philosophy that 
sets itself in opposition to faith. In both cases they fol- 
lowed the example of the Apostle S. Paul. He, too, had 
warned the faithful of Christ against “‘ oppositions of knowl- 
edge falsely so called’’ (I Tim. vi. 20), and against that sci- 
ence which “‘lifts’itself up against the science of God’’ 
(II Cor. x. 5) ; and he bore witness to the utter incapabil- 
ity of worldly wisdom to regenerate mankind. “‘ For it is 
‘‘ written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the 
** prudence of the prudent I will reject. Where is the 
** wise? Where'is the scribe? Where is the disputer of 
‘“this world? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of 
‘*this world? For seeing that in the wisdom of God the 
‘‘ world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the 
‘* foolishness of our preaching to save them that believe.’’ 
(I Cor. 1.17 seq.) Faith has done what science and reason 
could never achieve; and faith comes by the word of 
authority. 

24. At first, indeed, the wise, and the mighty, and the 
strong, who bowed their heads in submission to this ** divine 
folly’’ were few ; but soon many men of worldly learning 
turned their backs on heathen wisdom in order to find in 


584 THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION. 


Christianity peace for their troubled spirits. Men like Justin, 
Tatian, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and 
Augustine, left the philosophical schools for the Gospel, in 
order to find in it a safe anchor amid the foaming billows 
of error and doubt. Even cultured philosophers regarded 
the truths of the creation of all things by God, of man’s 
redemption by Christ, and_ his heavenly destiny, as such 
sublime doctrines, that they willingly exchanged the “ pursuit 


’ which held out no prospect of certain results, for 


of wisdom’ 
the possession of the truth in its completeness. They had 
been begging long enough at the gates of the philosophical 
schools, and instead of the bread they asked kad received a 
stone. Should they not rejoice now that Christianity had 
invited them to the banquet of eternal truth? Should they 
not be glad to subject their spirit in obedience to the divine 
spirit ? 

25. Is it, then, to be wondered at that what the Fathers 
nurtured in the philosophical schools should pass severe 
judgments on philosophy, and dwell on_ its sterility and 
contradiction? Philosophy, says Lactantius, as its very name 
will show (42. love of wisdom), is not the possession of 
wisdom. Moreover, “it is not in ‘accord with itself, but is 
“spit up into schools which hold various divergent opinions, 
“without having a firm foundation to rest upon. For every 
““schcol is at variance with all others, and seeks to run them 
“aground ; and there is not one that, in the judgment of the 
‘other, is not absurd. Thus, owing to the disunion among 
“the members, the whole of philosophy is brought to destruc- 
“tion. Whence, later on, there arose the Academy,”#0 

Indeed, the practical results of philosophy were next to 
none. Nor could it be otherwise, Where the sure foundation 
of truth and moral force is Wanting, no déep or lasting 
impression can be made on men’s lives, Even if the philoso- 
phers were acquainted with a few scattered truths, they could 


4° Justil. iv. 3-6. See Dillinger, Heidenthunt, p. 739. 


THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION, 586 


~ 


not turn them to the advantage either of the people or of the 
educated ; they never became a real, quickening, moral force 
in the world. Even the Apologists, who, like Justin and 
Clement, made an exception in favour of some philosophers— 
e.g. Plato and a few Stoics—acknowledged the impotence of all 
philosophy, Others, however, poured scorn upon philosophy as 
a teacher of life, and with all the more reason, as the philoso- 
phers were the most violent opponents of Christianity.‘ 
Tertullian calls Platonism the ‘eternal rallying-point of all 
heresies.” M. Felix!? gives anything but a flattering sketch 
of the lives of the philosophers, including Socrates. 

Tatian is still more severe in his judgment of Greek philo- 
sophy. This acute and cultured philosopher finds the 
doctrines of Christianity alone true and reasonable, and its 
adherents the true and genuine philosophers. Ambrose also 
informs us that day by day the philosophers of his time were 
being abandoned by their disciples, and returned to their 
schools to find them empty. ‘People no longer believe the 
philosophers, they believe the fishermen,” 

26. Weare as little disposed to call in question the one- 
sidedness of such judgments as to hold a brief for heathen 
philosophy and religion. As the judgments of competent 
contemporary scholars, they show at any rate that heathen 
wisdom and religion, and natural science generally, are inade- 
quate to set man’s spirit at rest. Faith alone, as taught by 
unerring authority, can do this. It enables man to take a true 
view of life (Weltanschauung) ; it alone can save the world 
from spiritual and moral shipwreck. But as soon as philosophy 
bad recognized the superiority of faith, it began to join hands 
with faith and to establish a lasting friendship. It was at once 
apparent that Greek philosophy contained many truths in 
germ, and that its concepts and dialetical methods were valuable 
qt See Christian Apology II. chapter vii. Kleutgen, 7/eoé, der Voraeit iit, 167. 

Athanas., C. Gent. c. 10. De (ncarn. © 53: 


42 Octev.c 38. See also Cicero. De Nat. Deor. i. 34. 
43 Ambros., De Fide i. 13, 84. 


586 ‘ THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION. 


auxiliaries for the science of revealed religion, and for gradually 
winning over the educated classes to Christianity. Apologists 
of East and West, of the schools of Antioch and Alexandria, 
vied with one another in employing Greek philosophy to build 
up and explain Christian doctrine. S, Augustine’s profound 
speculations not only laid the foundations of theology and the 
doctrine of grace, but gave a considerable impetus to philosophy, 
by bringing into prominence the will as well as the intellect, 
and by making psychology a part of philosophy, The Platonic 
impress on his writings is unmistakable ; but everyone will 
note with satisfaction how the mind and heart of this shrewd 
philosopher were saturated with Christian truth, and how 
skilfully he steered clear of the shoals and quicksands on which 
the loftiest flights of Plato’s spirit were wrecked. 

The Middle Ages entered on the inheritance that S. 
Augustine had bequeathed. But the scholastics did not rest 
here. The development of science and the interests of 
apologetics both demanded a close examination of the 
Aristotelian philosophy. And thus arose the mighty philoso- 
phical systems of S. Thomas and Duns Scotus, which served, 
each in its own way, as a bulwark of the faith, and dominated 
great schools for centuries. In this way all that was good in 
the best ancient philasophies was rendered accessible to the 
West. It was a genuine revival and development of Aristotle, 
not a mere lifeless repetition of his philosophy shorn of the 
errors that were at variance with Christian truth, And 
thus philosophy also under the guidance of the spirit of 
Christianity, contributed largely to the progress of general 
culture and science. Here S, Augustine’s saying was realized 
to the full, that the truth of Christianity cannot be silently 
ignored. Even its adversaries are compelled to reckon with 
this powerful factor in intellectual life. Without. Christian 
truth true science is no longer possible, The great speculations 
of Moorish and Jewish philosophers in Spain remained 
fruitless, because they were directed against the fundamental 


THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION, 587 


truths of Christianity. Avicenna and Averroes were illustrious 
philosophers, but their systems have no value beyond that of 
historical curiosities. 

27. Christian science has ever been unfolding her banner 
for fresh victories. However much her fortunes may vary, her 
conquests are as assured as they are undeniable. However 
much philosophers, more especially the moderns, may have 
cast themselves adrift from Christian philosophy, they cannot 
wholly emancipate themselves from its influence. Even they are 
indebted for much they have to Christianity. Consciously or 
unconsciously they have drawn whatever truth is in them 
from the well-spring of Christianity. The very fact that the 
condition of modern philosophy grows hopeless in proportion 
to its abandonment of Christianity is a proof of it, Society 
is shaken to its very foundations because of the intellectual 
confusion of the age, the sceptism and infidelity that have 
passed from the classes to the masses. What wonder, then, 
that the highest authority in Christendom has uttered the 
watchword : Go back to S. Thomas! 

28. The study of philosophy was likewise favourable to the 
study of the classics. That the Fathers, especially the Greek 
Fathers, were well versed in them goes without saying. S. 
Chrysostom’s style is, not without reason, called the Attic style 
of S. Paul. In the West S. Jerome is a model classic. In the 
monasteries the ancient mastrpieces were carefully preserved, 
copied, and studied. Tad it not been for the monasteries, the 
the rich literature of the ancients would have been Jost in the 
stormy ages’ that followed. The Humanists, indeed, revived 
classical studies, collated manuscripts, ,and rendered. them 
generally accessible; but who preserved them but that 
Church which, for centuries, had been almost the exclusive 
custodian of science? The Popes, even in the days of 
Humanism, were among the most vigorous promoters of these 
studies.- And the monasteries were as solicitous for education 
as for science. The Church established upper and lower 


588 THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION. 


schools, universities as well as monastic schools. The most 
famous libraries, notably the Vatican, owe their origin and 
maintenance to the Church. # 

29. Nowadays all scientific studies centre in the natural 
sciences. The great strides made in theory and practice in 
modern times are due to them. Our present industrial and 
commercial system is their creation. And it is often main- 
tained that this triumph of realism is a protest against ideal 
Christian science, and the religious .life inculcated by 
Christianity. And this contention seems to derive con- 
firmation from the bent of these sciences, which is naturalist 3” 
if not materialistic. The history of these natural sciences, 
from first to last, is represented as a series of skirmishes and 
conflicts in which science vindicates the right of free enquiry 
against the Church, and finally emerges from the conflict 
triumphant. Nevertheless, however much the changes are 
rung and the theme varied, the contention is untrue in the 
main, and exaggerated in detail ; moreover its ultimate conse- 
quence would be the rejection of all religion, and with it the 
downfall of civilization. 

The study of nature is a most conspicuous feature in the 
writings of the Old and New Testaments. They give voice and 
accent to the deepest and truest perception of nature, and to the 
keenest sense of admiration and delight evoked by her beauty 
and power, whereas the writings of Greeks and Romans, their 
natural knowledge notwithstanding, betray little or no such 
tendency. The Fathers of the Church, though shunning the 
world, manifested the most intense interest in nature. Nature’s 
friends were the monks, who promoted and gave a stimulus to 
natural knowledge. As Christianity, says Alexander von 
Humboldt, wherever it became the State religion, conterred a 
great boon on the lower classes by promoting civil liberties, so 


44 Mabler i. p- 568. Denifle, Die Universitéten des Mittelalters, i. Berlin, 1884. 
Allg, Zeitg. 1887, Kaufmann, Die Geschichte der deutschen Universitdten. 
i. Stuttgart, 1886. 


THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION, 589 


a 


it also took a broader view of nature. ‘‘ The vision was no 
‘‘longer confined to the forms of Olympic gods. The 
‘“ greatness of the Creator (so say the Fathers in their 
‘‘ poetic language) is manifested as much in dead as in liv- 
ing nature, as much in the wild rage of the elements as 
in the gentle process of organic development.’ The 
Christian idea of proving the goodness and greatness of 
the Creator from the order and beauty that reign in the 
universe and in nature, necessarily led to nature being sur- 
veyed and described more exactly. Hence in the writings 
of the Fathers (M. Felix, Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil) de- 
scriptions of nature, taken from life, are of frequent occur- 
rence. Basil’s descriptions are justly set down as master- 
pieces in their line.” Here we see the first beginnings of 
descriptive natural science. Assuredly it is not sheer acci- 
dent that nowhere but on Christian soil has natural science 
developed into a beneficent factor in human civilization. 
30. Nevertheless the Fathers are often severe in their 
judgments on natural science or, to speak more correctly, on 
natural philosophy. Theattitude then taken up by natural 
science made their position perfectly intelligible. One said 
one thing, anotheranother. Anyone witha little eloquence 
belaboured his opponents, laid low their theories, and set 
up his own which, in their turn, gave place to others. 
‘While these men,’’ says S. Basil, are wrangling with one 
another, we may “‘ calmly iook on and appeal to Moses.’’4” 
Nevertheless, he was desirous of being better versed in 
the natural sciences. He wished to make further en- 
quiries as to the size and distance of the sun and moon 
* in order to be able to describe more minutely their forces 
and the effects they produced. For our admiration, he 
says, is not diminished, if we know the process and the 
causes by which wonderful phenomena are brought about. 
But we must remember that only certain results not 


6eé 


ié 


45 Kosmos. i. 25. 
46 Theol. Quartalschr. 1876, p. 636 seq. Zéckler, i, 83 seq. 
47 Theol. Quartalschr. p. 654. 


590 THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION, 


mere Conjectures are to be taken into account. Augustine was 
still more cautious. He seems to have assessed the natural 
science of his day at too high a figure. The greater the dark- 
ness, he says, in which the Almighty Creator has enveloped 
created things, the less can it be cleared away with simple 
propositions ; the more cautiously, too, we must proceed ; the 
more necessary it is to learn the judgment of experts. “It 
“often happens that concerning the earth, the heavens, the 
*felements of this world, their motions and revolutions, distance 
“and magnitude, eclipse of sun and moon, change of seasons, 
“the nature of animals and plants, and so forth, one who is 
“not a Christian, may have certain knowledge based on grounds 
‘“of reason and experience firmly Heldsacs 

31. These principles have, in the main, ever stood their 
ground in the Church. The Book of Nature and the Book of 
Kevelation were both given to man by the same Almighty 
Creator. We have only to read them in the rizht light to be 
convinced that the one does not contradict the cther. On the 
contrary, nature leads to God ; the study of nature isa prepara- 
tion for the study of revelation. Is it a matter for wonder that 
both are not always rightly understood by all? If false ideas 
of nature have at times obscured the knowledge of revelation, 
or if incorrect explanations of revelation have given rise to 
false ideas on nature, who is to blame? Are there no back- 
slidings in the history of the natural sciences? Even 
Lactantius, Augustine, and Pope Zachary were so carried away 
by dogmatic prejudices as to deny the existence of the 
Antipodes, but was this scientific heresy totally inexcusable at 
that time? Lactantius’ notion that men in the Antipodes 
would have to walk on their heads was certainly childish; but 
had not Lactantius been brought up in heathen schools? 
Heathen scholars also (Eratosthenes, Strabo, Plutarch) had 
denied the existence of the Antipodes,’or the earth’s spherical 
shape. 


48. De Gen, ad. lit, I. 18, 20, 57, 30 $ II. 0, ez 


THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION, Sgr 


32. True, Aristotle’s works on the natural sciences were 
condemned in the Middle Ages, and the monks were forbidden 
to read writings on physics (Tours 1163, Paris 1209). But, 
on the one hand, the degradation of natural science into 
charms among the Celtic and Germanic peoples necessitated 
and this is to be 
specially noted—Aristotelian natural philosophy had crossed 


circumspection. On the other hand 


Spain and penetrated into France in the guise of Arabian 
Pantheism. Consequently, until the writings were expurgated 
and a sure text restored, there was no other course open but 
to restrict their teaching within the narrowest limits. For, in 
consequence of the Arabian misreadings of Aristotle, dangerous 
errors had crept into the Church, ‘That the prohibition did 
“not aim at suppressing the study of Aristotle in all parts of 
“Christendom, or unconditionally, or for all time, is shown by 
‘the widespread growth of Aristotelian studies that was then 
“taking place in all theological institutions, those of Paris 
“excepted.”49 When, at a later period, decrees were issued 
against the study of certain natural sciences, such as astrology, 
anatomy, chemistry, and medicine, it is not difficult to show 
that they were aimed at abuses. Astrology was, in great 
measue, enslaved to superstition; anatomy tended to dis- 
honour the dead body; and chemistry was merging into 
alchemy. Medicine, however, was a forbidden study only to 
monks and clerics. Not infrequen'ly, on the other hand, 
the Popes took natural scientists under their protection 
(Theodore of Cervia, Roger Bacon, Arnoldus),5° and dis- 
tinguished physicians, even Jews, were kept at their court. 
The prohibition to dissect corpses had a religious motive, 
recognised in all ancient times. The Church, in her anxiety 
to spare religious feeling, was in reality consulting the interests 


DS) 


of science by keeping it within the bounds of moderation, 


49 Zockler i. 363 
50 1d. p. 343 


592 THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION, 


33. Roger Bacon and Albertus Magnus were monks and 
philosophers of the first rank. Themselves enthusiasts for 
natuie, they cultivated natural science in the full modern 
sense. Both insisted on the necessity of the experimental 
method, and were eminently successful in their attempts. 
All that could be done with the appliances then to hand they 
accomplished. For centuries Albert was unsurpassed and 
unequalled as a botanist and chemist. In the province of 
physics, Roger Bacon towered equally high above all his 
contemporaries. He was successful both in his actual dis- 
coveries and in his .prophetical surmises of the future 
possibilities of natural science. He invented the magnifying 
glass. He was acquainted with the main principles of the 
doctrine of the refraction and reflection of light, with the action 
of the eye and optic nerve. He knew the working of gun- 
powder before Berthold Schwarz discovered it. And he at 
least conjectured the power of steam. Both Albert and Bacon 
were in consequence suspected of magic. Bacon had to 
endure a long imprisonment, But it should not be forgotten 
that magic, which was then rampant in many forms, was a 
heathen excrescence, against which the Church had from the 
very first been contending with all her might. 

Names of secondary rank, though numerous, we pass over. 
The body of learned writings from the Speculum Naturale of 
Vincent of Beauvais (1250) to the Zmago Mundi of Cardinal 
Peter d’Ailly (1410), and the great Margarita Philosophica of 
_ Father Reisch (1486), rendered the greatest service in spread- 
ing a knowledge of nature, and prepared the way for the 
discoveries that followed. Columbus confessed himself 
indebted to the writings of the Cardinal just mentioned for 
his natural knowledge. Raymond of Sabunde (1439), who 
constructed’a system of natural theology on Bacon’s principles, 
is known to fame. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries 
the friars had explored Tartary, and brought these countries to 
the knowledge of the West before Marco Polo and other 


THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION, 593 


Venetian merchants had set foot thereon. Von Ruysbroek’s 
(1253) account of his travels deserves, says Peschel, to rank 
as “the greatest geographical masterpiece of the middle ages.” 
Alexander Von Humboldt bestows on him similar praise, 

34. In the period that followed, mathematics and the 
natural sciences were largely studied, especially in Italy. 
Nicholas of Cusa, the friend of the mathematicians Peurbach 
and Regiomontan, bishop of Regensburg, laid the foundation 
for his explanation of the universe, which is described as the 
pioneer of the monadological system of Leibnitz and the 
speculations of Schelling and Baader. In Italy he became 
acquainted with the ancient Pythagorean view of the world, 
and by his calculations and observations was convinced of the 
untenableness of the Ptolemaic system. His activity gave a 
stimulus to the Reform of the Calendar 


an object which 
Rome never lost sight of. 

Christopher Columbus, too, the discoverer of the New 
World, conceived in Italy the resolution to extend his 
journeys. On his voyage of discovery, which was conducted on 
a well-defined plan, he used the map of Toscanelli, the Master 
of Nicholas of Cusa. Copernicus, Canon of Frauenburg, 
prosecuted his astronomical studies and observations in Italy 
(Bologna). His subsequent promotion to Ferrara indicates 
the threads that joined the principles of his system with 
the theories of Italian natural philosophy and astronomy 
(Calagnini). It was cardinals and bishops who urged him 
to publish the work that was to overturn the world. The 
work itself was dedicated to Pope Paul III. Italians (Galileo), 
Germans (Kepler), and Englishmen (Newton) entered into the 
inheritance, and completed and extended the noble structure, 
—-scholars who shine as brilliantly in the firmament of science 
as they were models of humble faith. 

34. The discoverers of new worlds and seas, like the great 
astronomers, combined love of nature and science with faith. 
Columbus and Vasco de Gama were too noble to allow thems | 


594 THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION, 


selves to be guided by vain ambition or sordid avarice. Some 
of Columbus’ descriptions of the new world have come down 
to us, and they certainly can compare with the best of their 
kind. His views on physical geography, his observations on 
the deflection of the magnetic needle, on inflection of the 
isothermal lines between the West Coast of the Old world and 
the East Coast of the New, on the position of the great Sargasso 
Sea, and so forth, betray a wonderful power of observation in 
a sea-faring man who lacked a learned education. In the 
wake of discoverers and conquerors numerous missionaries 
followed who not only furthered the spread of religion, but also 
enfiched the natural sciences,. especially ethnology and line 
guistics (Las Casas, Roman, Blas de Juana, José d’ Acosta), 
The Jesuits have published most important works on Africa, 
China, and Thibet, (Paez, Alvarez, Ricci, Schall, Borri, Alex- 
ander de Rhodes, Kircher, Rodriguez, Nobili, Roth and 
others).°! It speaks weil for che high state of the civilisation of 
the time that men grasped the bearing of the new discoveries, 
and strove to profit by them. ‘The ablest among them (the 
“companions of Columbus) perceived the influence that the 
* events of the last years of the 15th century were destined to 
“exert on mankind.” Peter Martyr of Anghiera was enraptured 
with the wonders of the new world ; Leo X. stayed up late into 
the night to read aloud to his sister and to the Cardinals Peter's 
Oceanica. “T would never again,” the writer says, leave Spain, 
“For here I stand at the fountain head of the news that 
“comes from the newly-discovered lands, and having so much — 
“greater conveniences for writing history I might hope to 
win some glory for my name in the next world.” 

35. And all these great events were taking place at a time 
when philosophy and the study of nature were quite laid aside 
in Germany. For, the partisans of Luther and the Reformation 
had set their face against natural science as well as against 


51. Zickler p. 555 deg. Humboldt, Kosmos II. 283 
s2. Kosiios li., 299 seg. 316 seq. 


THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION, 595 


superstition, against the astronomy of Copernicus as much as 
against astrology. ‘*The powerful personality of the Reformer 
“so inoculated subsequent Lutheran theology with its own 
“peculiar way of looking at nature that for well nigh two 
“hundred yéars it took up no position in regard to the burning 
“questions of the day.”*? Does not this sound like a con- 
firmation of Mohler’s words: “As long as the Protestant 
“Church believed the doctrine of Luther and Calvin, it had 
“neither poetry, nor history, nor philosophy. . . As long 
‘as the Protestant Church was Lutheran it was without 
*‘ philosophy, and when it received a philosophy it ceased to be 
“Lutheran Does then its faith put philosophy to flight ? and 
“ does its philosophy banish faith ?” 

36. We have already discussed the conflicts that arose on 
the advent of Copernicanism. We likewise noted that 
Copernicus’ system was impugned by such scientific men as 
Tycho Brahe and Bacon of Verulam. This is a phenomenon 
that repeats itself in science whenever a new discovery is 
made. At the end of last century the great scientific authori- 
ties in France and the neighbouring countries denied the 
cosmic origin of meteorites. For this reason we should be 
nore lenient in judging the Church’s opposition to the new 
system. Anyhow no one was a martyr to this opposit'on, 
Giordano Bruno’s advocacy of Copernicanism had Jeast to do 
with his ceath (1600), ‘‘ Rather,” remarks the Protestant 
Zockler, “he gave the lie’ to the sound ideas of de Cusa by 
“tacking on them a heathenish pantheism which contained not 
““a few elements that were free-thinking, and fraught with 
“frivolous antagonism to the Church. His spaccto della bestia 
* trionfante in particular was so pointedly anti-ecclesiastical in 
** character, by reason of the Satanic ridicule it heaped on 
‘ nositive dogmas like the divinity of Christ, and of its grossly 
“insulting language (e.g., in comparing the God-man with a 


52 Zéckler, p.z9z. Mohler i., 260. 


596 THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION, 


“Centaur) that he cannot be acquitted of blasphemy.”54 
And as he exploited the doctrine of the plurality of worlds in 
order to destroy the doctrine of redemption, and as his life 
_ was in keeping with his teaching, he has lost all title to be 
ranked as a “martyr of science.” What Galileo had to endure 
from the Inquisition, and Kepler from the Protestant fanaticism 
rampant among the Tubingen theologians, must be judged 


according to the circumstances of the age. The consequences 
were by no means so disastrous for science as they are often 
painted. Scholars (e.g., Descartes, Gassendi, Hobbes) were 4 
admonished to be more cautious, but enquiry proceeded, 
though at a somewhat slower and surer pace, along the path 
they had marked out. The ultimate consequences were drawn 

by the believer Newton. 

37. The conflicts between science and faith in cther 
departments of natural science have been of slighter moment. 
Very frequently distinguished professors of science have taken 
the side of faith. In some instances, as in the province of 
physics and chemistry (Porta, Accademia del Cimento, Redi, 
Borelli, Oliva) prohibitions and censures were issued which + 


o. 7 ~ 
——I2 > Se eee ee a 


affected more than abuses; but they had very little cramping 
effect on science itself. From then till now it will be seen 
that theology has given natural science a push forward, while 
its own professors were blocking progress. ‘They have - 
“nothiag wherewith to reproach one another. The number 
“of unreasonable theologians antagonistic to science is fairly 
“balanced by the number and weight of the men of science 
“who in their way were equally unreasonable and antagonistic to 
“science. On both sides their is the tyranny of old-established 
“opinions, and consequently unintentional obscurantism ; both 
“sides, with a suppositious cock-suredness, furthering their own 
“views, but in reality obstructing and obscuring scientific 


54 Pp. 533- See Berti, Vita di Giordano Bruno. Torino, 1868. Previti, Giordano e 
Suot tempt, Prato 1887. Reveu des guest. hist. Juill. 1887. Controverse Avril 
1888. Sigwart. Die Lebensgeschichie Giordano Bruno's. Tibingen 1883 


THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION, 597 


“truth.”55 Nor should it be forgotten that theologians re- 
presented higher interests, and that they were not infrequently 
driven into opposition by the hostile attitude assumed by 
scientists against Christianity, This is especially true of the 
natural science of to-day, which, not content with ignoring 
Christian truth, seeks to work on the masses by treating it 
with scorn and indulging in sarcastic abuse. 

Nevertheless, despite all provecation, the Church is in no 
way hostile to science. We live in an age of specialists, and 
the division of labour into special groups has rendered exten- 
sive all-round co-operation with theologians impossible; still 
many theologians and believers, both Catholic and Protestant, 
have rendered signal service in the departments of science. 
The astronomers Vico and Secchi, Wurm and Dawes, the 
biologist Mivart, the anthropologist Quatrefages, Wigan the 
botanist, are names of repute in learned circles. The French 
Abbés Hany, Moigno, Rendu, have rendered great service 
in mineralogy and physics. Catholic and Protestant mis- 
sionaries vie with one another in geography, ethnography, 
and _ philosophy. 

38. One department connected with science stilt remains. 
Art is an important factor in the march of civilisation. It 
is at the same time the standard for measuring the moral 
and religious state of a people. In the art of the Hindus, 
Chaldeans, Babylonians, Egyptians, Syrians, Greeks, and 
Romans we see, as in a mirror, the point of view from 
which they regarded the world. Greek art was nearest 
to Christianity in point of time. Mythology had provided 
Greek sculptors and architects with noble forms; but their 
productions, like their religion, were naturalistic and sensual. 
This two-fold flaw necessarily put a preacher of the Gospel, 
acquainted with the prohibitions in the Old Testament, on his 
guard against Greek art. S. Paul, as we learn from his 
Epistles, shuddered at the sight of idols. For the fact that the 


55 Zcklerii. § 


598 THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION. 


heathen worshipped the works of their hands appeared to a 
soul imbued with faith so monstrous, that the artistic beauty 
of the work seemed to him merely to accentuate its danger 
to faith. For the same reason the Fathers uttered similar 
condemnations. Only when heathenism lay at the feet 
of Christianity did art, which had been pursuing a very 
humble course in the Catacombs, begin to devote its fuller 
services to Christianity. The veneration of saints, and the 
growth of the liturgy, contributed more than anything else 
to the development of art. The iconoclasm of the Byzantine 
Ceesars could only impede its development for a time. The 
Middle Ages were marvellously rich in architecture, sculpture, 
and painting. Gothic Cathedrals piercing the skies ; master- 
pieces of sculpture, which are the charm of our art galleries ; 
the noble paintings of the Italian, German, Flemish, and 
Spanish schools, which even now are the admiration of all 
beholders,—all these prove that art was consecrated by being 
under the Church’s shadow, and that the religious feeling 
that pervaded those flourishing epochs was favourable to 
the development of high art. 

39. Thus the Catholic Church, by blending faith with 
science and art, has in a wonderful manner restored the 
harmony between the soul’s powers and between all classes of 
men. “ For in her, as ina true community, all consciousness 
“of the worth and dignity of individuals depends on the bloom 
‘and beauty, on the inner life, majesty, and nobility of the 
“whole. In the Church, therefore, individuals are able to 
“develop an astonishing wealth of ideas. The arts and 
“sciences flourish, and the most magnificent manifestations of 
“life and work step forth from their own inner shrine into the 
“light of day.°® In such times Augustine, Chrysostom, Thomas 
§6 Mohler, p. 260. Theol. Quartalschr 1846, p. 405. sec. See also on the whole 

subject Ratzinger, Die Volkswirthschast in thren sittlichen Grundlagen, Studien, 
tiber Cultur und Civilisation. F reidburg 1881. Geschichie der Kirlichen Armen 
Pflege. 2ed. Freiburg 1884. For the history and reform of almonry see Ehrle, 


Stimmen aus Maria-Laack. Historisches Jahrbuch 1888. Weiss, Apologie des 
Christenthums i. Freiburg 1888. 


eS Oo 


THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION. 599 


“Aquinas, Erwin von Steinbach, Dante, Michael Angelo, 
** Raphael, Bossuet, Fenelon, Bourdaloue, Massillon, Descartes, 
*““Malebranche, Racine, and a brilliant host of heroes in every 
“path of excellence were produced.” 

40. The abuse which modern historians of civilisation have 
heaped upon the Church, as if she were opposed to social and 
scientific progress, induced the Vatican Council to declare 
itself in the chapter on Faith and Reason. It teaches: “ Not 
“only can faith and reason never be opposed to one another, 
“but they are of mutual aid one to the other ; for right reason 
** demonstrates the foundations of faith, and, enlightened by its 
“light, cultivates the science of things divine; while faith frees 
“and guards reason from errors, and furnishes it with manifold 
“knowledge. So far, therefore, is the Church from opposing 
“the cultivation of human arts and sciences, that it in many 
““many ways helps and promotes it. For the Church neither 
‘ignores nor despises the benefits to human life which result 
“from the arts and sciences, but confesses that, as they came 
“from God, the Lord of all science, so, if they be rightly used, 
“they lead to God by the help of His Grace. Nor does the 
“Church forbid that each of these sciences in its sphere 
“should make use of its own principles and its own method ; 
“but while recognising this just liberty, it stands watchfully on 
“‘suard, lest sciences, setting themselves against the divine 
teaching, or transgressing their own limits, should invade and 
‘disturb the domain of faith.”* Christianity, then, and the 
Church have no reason to fear the history of civilization, 
Other peoples, like the Chinese, had made the discoveries 
(printing, gunpowder, magnet) previously, without utilizing them 
scientifically, or puting them out to commercial profit. Chris- 
tianity is the only religion which, while pointing out the road to 
heaven, has likewise transformed and improved the conditions 
of earthly life. Even now Christian peoples are at the summit 
of the ladder of civilisation. And if they have in many ways 


_ * See Card. Manning’s translation. 


600 THE CHURCH AND CIVILIZATION, 


emancipated themselves from the influence of Christianity, 
yet they have not been able wholiy to lay aside that Christian 
character which has been so beneficial to them. Neither race, 
nor country, nor climate, nor history can supply an adequate 
explanation of this wonderful phenomenon. It is Jesus Christ, 
the central figure in the world’s history, who has renewed the 
face of the earth. He is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and 
the end. And He endures in His Church to the end of the 
world. 


THE END. 


APPEND TX Lt 


THE ANGLICAN VIEW OF THE POPE’S PRIMACY, 


The following is the text (without the notes) 
of a portion of a Paper read by Professor Bright, 
in 1875, before the Oxford Branch of the E. C. U., 
and published under the title: “ Zhe Roman 
Claims Tested by Antiguity.” The English 
reader of the Apology will thus be in a position 
to compare the Anglican line of argument with 


the Cathoiic method as represented by our Author. 

“Now, recalling the substance of the Vatican dogma, and 
“taking, as part of it, as in all reason we must, or, at least, 
sf recognising as a basis of it, the assertion that this is in 
‘accordance with the continuous belief of the Church Catholic 
“from early ages, we may, I think, appreciate the contrast 
“between such propositions and the evidence of what the 
‘ancient Church believed, as to the general scheme of Church 
*“sovernment and Church teaching, and the position of the 
Roman See. 

“To that See, and its Church, Ancient Christianity un- 
“‘doubtedly assigned a place both lofty and distinctive. A 
“6* Primacy” is not an unfair phrase to describe what is 
‘intended, if by Primacy you understand a precedency, an 
““eminence, and (in a sense not formal or technical) a leader- 
“ship. We remember how Athens, in Greek history, began 


602 APPENDIX, 


“with a more definite syeovia, and was accused of turning 
“it into a dominion or dpx4. Various causes went to make 
“up the ‘primacy’ of the Roman Bishops. Their Church 
“was the only Church in the West which was founded, or, 
“strictly speaking, organised, by Apostolic hands (here I 
“exclude Greece from the West, and Macedonia and Thrace 
“‘also). Around the Roman Church was gathered the majesty 
“of the names of Peter and Paul. Again, it was the Church 
“of the Imperial capital; and, very naturally, the Churches 
“of great cities became great Churches. It was famous for 
“its bountiful generosity ;~ it was trusted for its traditional 


“immunity from heretical speculations (although, by one ° 


“account, that immunity was not quite absolute). Thus the 
“Roman Church was a typical Church, a leading Church in 
“fact, the first Church in rank and influence. This sort of 
“*primacy,’ involving a moral guarantee of its soundness of 
“belief, may be that ‘ principalitas’ which led S. Irenzeus to 
“say that ‘every Church’ that was itself true to Apostolie 
“tradition ‘must needs agree with it;’ so that it was a sample 
“Church, a miniature of the whole body, and by referring to it 
“one could see what was held by all. Yet this same Irenzeus 
“could join in ‘sharp remonstrances’ to the Roman Bishop 
“when he broke off communion with some Asiatic Churches 
‘fon a question of ritual. Again, Cyprian recognised in Peter 
“the representative of the Apostles? unity, and in Peter’s 
‘“Koman See an analogous function towards all Bishoprics ; 
“he calls that Church ‘the principal (perhaps the original) 
“Church, whence arose the unity of the priesthood,’ because 
“he regards its Bishop as specially representing Peter, to 
“whom were spoken Christ’s first words on Church authority, 
“But while he thus spoke, and while he viewed the Roman 
“ Bishop as pre-eminently bound to enforce the rule of Church, 
“order, he evidently regarded him as only primus inter pares, 
“resisted him when he thought him in error, and significantly 
‘“ observed—‘ No one of us sets himself up as Bishop of 


APPENDIX. 603 


Bishops.’ The appeal or application to a Bishop of Rome 

on the part of some Africans who doubted the orthodoxy of 

the Bishop of Alexandria, is quite intelligible on these prin- 
“ciples, and proves nothing for the Papal claim. But the 
* Nicene Council is the best instance one could take—the 
“best on all grounds. If Pius IX. is right, the Church has 
‘Salways known the Bishop of Rome to be its supreme ruler 
*fand its infallible teacher. When was there a fitter occasion 
*““for the exercise of these great functions than at the rise of 
“the Arian controversy? Yet neither, in fact, was exercised. 
** Now, on the principle of the Vatican dogmas, why did not 
* Pope Sylvester close the question by an ex cathedrd judg- 
“ment? Nobody thought (it is evident) of asking him to do 
fsQuu tie peyer attempted to do it: himself... Why not? Tf 
“the ‘perpetual practice of the Church’ was what Pius IX. 
‘asserts, this 1s quite inexplicable; the negligence, on the 
“part alike of the Church and the Pope, was simply treasonable. 
“ And even when the Nicene Council, which doubtless included 
* Sylvester’s deputies, who held a high, if not the very highest, 
“place in it, had settled the doctrinal question, it alluded in 
“one of its canons to the patriarchial jurisdiction 


as we may 

‘call it—of the Roman Bishop, in illustration of similar juris- 
“diction belonging to the Alexandrian Bishop; and _ utterly 
‘ignored, or rather was manifestly unconscious of, any right 
*‘in the Roman Bishop to an exceptional and cecumenical 
“supremacy. ‘This may suffice for the great Nicene Council. 
**In after times the legend of a solemn Papal confirmation of 
“its decrees by Sylvester was invented without any warrant, 
“and may be ranked with the fable of the Donation of 
“ Constantine. 

‘The Roman Church throughout the Arian struggle was 
* orthodox ; for we cannot reckon the lapse of Liberius, when 
‘in exile, as properly compromising his Church, although, 
“inasmuch as he acted as Roman Bishop, he could not but 
“compromise his See. His predecessor, Bishop Julius— 


604 APPENDIX. 


“‘whose action, by the way, in one part of the struggle was 
“exaggerated by later historians—was invested with a sort of 
“appellate jurisdiction—in fact, a right to order a re-hearing, 
“by the great Western Council of Sardica, which thought fit 
“to grant this power to the head Bishop of the West, in 
“honour of S. Peter, but did not recognise it as inherent in 
“his See. But their canon, incperative in the East, was not 
“received by all in the West; for when, in the fifth century, 
“one Bishop of Rome after another referred to this Sardican 
*“canon as if it were Nicene, the African Bishops exposed the 
“error by procuring authentic copies of the Nicene canons, 
“and gave Pope Celestine a strong hint to eschew the ‘ smoky 
‘pride’ of secular domination, and more than a hint to 
“forbear interference with Church causes in Africa. That is, 
“they utterly declined to look on him as the universal and 
“final judge, even in Western affairs. But there was at Rome 
“a growing tendency to stretch the ‘Primacy’ into something 
“like a general overseership ; and for this purpose a tradition 
“of unscrupulous assertion had been forming itself, as when 
“Innocent assumed all Gallican and Spanish Churches to be 
“of Roman foundation, and Leo, as Bingham drily remarks, 
“allowed himself to call anything ‘apostolical’ which could 
“be traced to his predecessors. Leo, in fact, procured a 
“decree from the Western Emperor which established his 
“supremacy in the Western Church; and in the great doc- 
*‘trinal controversy of his time he took part with a yet higher 
“hand than did Celestine in that which preceded it. . He 
“repeated the unwarrantable citation of a Sardican canon as 
“Nicene: he treated the most eminent Bishop in Gaul with 
‘despotic harshness: he advanced the interest of Rome, as 
“well as of the Catholic truth, by presiding at the Council of 
“Chalcedon through his delegates; but although the Council 
“paid him all observance as its president, and employed 
“some language which might countenance his claim of 
““oecumenic superintendence, it re-heard a case which he 


APPENDIX. 605 


“personally had decided; it judged and approved, as by 
“superior authority, his great doctrinal letter, and set aside 
“his delegates’ corrupt version of a Nicene canon; not to say 
“that it passed a canon of its own which could not but be 
“offensive to him, although it was coupled with respectful 
“requests for his sanction to give it validity. On the whole, 
this Council shows what the Eastern Church thought, in the 
“fifth century, of the Roman Bishop: it gave him signal 
“honours as a sort of Primate of Christendom, but it did 
“not dream of recognising him as an ecclesiastical monarch, 
“the source of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It had its theory 
“of general Church polity, which covered all the ground of 
“the case—a theory of patriarchal federation, in which Rome 
“stood first of the great Bishoprics, and, at any rate in 451, 
“Constantinople second, then Alexandria, then Antioch, 
“Rome having some not very definite rights peculiar to 
“herself, but being essentially the first patriarchate, and not 
“the single all-ruling Papacy. This gives the answer to a 
“question sometimes put to us :—‘ Why do not you Anglicans 
“think and speak of Rome as did all Churchmen in the 
“period which you profess to admire?’ Because Rome is 
“not what she was in the age of the great Fathers. She 
“insists on being taken for very much more than of right she 
‘Sis, and therefore we are obliged to withhold what in ancient 
“times was deemed her due. It is idle to bid us acknowledge 
“her Bishop as first Patriarch, when he will not be acknow- 
“ledged as anything short of a Supreme Pontiff. The old 
“ canonical or ecclesiastical precedency is suspended by the 
“later and uncanonical usurpation. ‘This point is well urged 
“in a treatise ‘On the Unity of the Church,’ written in his 
“Anglican days, by ‘ Henry Edward Manning.’ 

“One need not go much lower down the stream of history. 
‘Various ‘complications in the East, caused by the Mono- 
“ physite controversy, gave Rome a not unfair advantage over 
“Constantinople; and, ultimately, after various instances of 


606 APPENDIX. 


“what we call ‘domineering’ on the part of Pope Felix IL. 
“and Pope Gelasius, who seem to have been almost reckless 
“in their assertions, a Pope in 519 dictated terms successfully 
“to the Church of Constantinople. In less than forty years, 
“however, the Fifth Council met at Constantinople, and a 
“Pope, coming into collision with it, was exceptionally humil- 
“iated ; and when, in 680, the Sixth Council met, we all 
“know it pronounced a deceased Pope, Honorius, to be a 
“heretic worthy of anathema. Dr. Newman admits that ‘this 
“is a strong prima facie argument against the Pope’s doctrinal 
“‘infallibility.’ He meets it by saying that Honorius, in his 
“two letters in question, was not meaning to speak ex cathedrd 
“as the teacher of tre Universal Church: therefore he was not 
speaking intallibly. ‘Who,’ he asks, ‘will dream of saying 
“that Monorius in the seventh century did actually intend to 
“exert that infallible teaching voice which has been dog- 
“matically recognised in the nineteenth?’ Surely a surprising 
“question, Pius LX. tells us that the Popedom has all along 
“had this power. Therefore Honorius had it, and must have 
“known of it. Why did he ef mean to use it? The form 
“of the question realiy implies that Pius IX. was not ‘adhering 
“to primitive tradition’ when he taught that Roman Pontiffs 
“hold this office of infallible teachers. The fact is, of course, 
*‘that Honorius did not look upon himself as Pius looks upon 
“himself and all his predecessors. But he was consulted as 
“Roman patriarch, and he meant to speak with all the weight 
“of that position. Dr. Newman intimates an opinion that in 
“his letters he was only feeling his way: that they are 
* “portions of a discussion with a view to some final decision.’ 
“Respect for this great writer prevents me from saying more 
‘than that the letters point to quite another conclusion. ‘We 
“ought,’ writes Honorius, ‘to say this, not that.’ ‘You will 
“affirm this with us.’ He makes his statement ‘as to what 
“touches the Church’s doctrine, and what we are bound to 
“hold and teach.’ He had written to three patriarchs on this 


APPENDIX. 607 


“question. Then he mistock the bearings of the case—that 
“he had no heretical meaning—is very possible. But the fact 
“‘remains that he wrote officially as Roman Bishop, and that 
“his name was posthumously branded with heresy by an 
“Ecumenical Council, whose judgment was accepted by two 
“other Councils and a long succession of Popes, although the 
“fact was suppressed in the Roman Breviary when revised in 
“the seventeenth century—suppressed, of course, for the sake 
“of ‘ edification,’ 

“But, it will be said, Dr. Newman urges that ‘the Pope 
“has no rival in his claims upon us:’ that he alone represents 
“spiritual authority, and ‘if we give him up, to whom shall 
“we go?’ and again, ‘that he is heir, by default, to the 
“Nicene Hierarchy,’ insomuch that now ‘to believe in a 
“Church is to believe in the Pope.’ In regard to the first 
“of these positions, the context illustrates a remark of Bishop 
“ Wilberforce’s that Dr. Newman’s ‘intense individuality’ has 
“repeatedly coloured his view of historic facts to the extent 
“‘of seriously misrepresenting them. His mind has always 
“demanded a Pope. In his famous ‘Essay on Development’ 
“he shows that ‘an infallible Chair’ was a great attraction 
“in drawing him towards Rome. So now he asks, Whom 
‘can one obey as a spiritual ruler, except the Pope? ‘Can 
“I put my soul into the hands of the Ar :-hbishop of Canter- 
“bury or of the Bishop of Lincoln? We answer, ‘No one 
“wishes you to do so. We put our souls into the hands of no 
“individual prelate.’ At p., 72 he describes religion as ‘a 
“spiritual loyalty to persons.’ If he means to any persons on 
“earth, we cannnot acquiesce in such a definition of that vast 
‘and awful combination of spiritual beliefs, obligations, 
“actions, which we call Religion. In fact, we hold that an 
“overstraining of clerical authority has injured the propor- 
“tions of Latin faith, and created a tradition of Protestant 

anti-sacerdotalism, . . . The Papacy, in short, is a 

perversion, by excess and exaggeration, of the ancient polity 


608 | APPENDIX, 


/“of the Catholic Church. We see in it, not the Divine 
“development of a principle originally acknowledged, but a 
“process of human usurpation, the conversion of a legitimate 
“‘precedency, or leadership, into a sovereignty swelling out, 
“age after age, in huger bulk, until its present holder has 
* practically said, ‘The Church—that is I.’ That this process 
“has been in many ways overruled for high and beneficent 
“ends, is but to say that the Eternal Goodness, here as 
“elsewhere, has brought good out of evil. It does not prove 
“that the thing itself was of Divine institution. We have 
“been looking at the Roman question in this one aspect $ 
“but we dare not permit ourselves to forget other instances 
“in which Rome has corrupted the deposit of Christian 
“truth, She is, after all, a great institution, rich in lofty and 
“splendid types of excellence, iarvellously fertile in self- 
“adaptation, abundant in forms of intense religious energy ; 
“but she is not to be trusted with our consciences—with our 
“souls. While she is what she is, we must hold aloof from 
“her: we must deny her claims: we must lay mainly at her 
“door the miserable divisions of that Christendom whose 
“ancient unity was so mighty a witness for Christ.” 


APPEND DX LET 


THE RE-UNION OF CHRISTENDOM, 


THERE 1s abundant evidence that in Eneland 
at the present time there exists a very widespread 
desire for Religious Unity.. Whence that desire 
springs it is not quite easy to say. It may indeed, 
as all must hope, spring from love of God, zeal 
for religion, longing for positive truth; or again 
igeimay be born.only of the) Zezigerst. It may. 
thus quite possibly be due to motives merely 
political, or national, or humanitarian. I[t is a 
common place that the English-speaking race now 
peoples several continents, One in language, it 
is declared one also in instinct, habit, genius, and 
character. At the same time in religion it is more 
miserably divided than ever nation was before. 
Now, as religion is so vital an element in life 
and society, this disunion must inevitably under- 
mine the influence as much as it dims the glory | 
of the Anglo-Saxon race. Hence, perhaps, the 
longing for agreement, for concord—in a word, 
for unity. But whatever its origin, whether the 
fruit of grace or only of nature, undoubtedly the 


610 APPENDIX, 
' 


desire exists, and that not as any mere sterile 
wish, but active, earnest, energetic. No sign of 
the time can be more hopeful. Strenuous efforts 
are openly made with the definite aim of bringing 
to pass a Re-union of the Churches. A Magazine 
with the ambitious title “The Review of the 
Churches” appears monthly, under the direction 
of representative Editors. Again, Annual Meet- 
ings are arranged for friendly discussion and inter- 
course; and one Association has been organised 
for the purpose of soliciting the prayers of its 
members for the Re-union of Christendom. 
True, we cannot say that all those who have 
this object at heart are agreed as to the precise 
end in view, or the means they should adopt for 
its attainment. There are, as the extracts below 
will show, two distinct currents in the movement, 
The Catholic Apologist cannot be wholly in- 
different to such a movement. Rather he will 
watch it with the keenest interest and the liveliest 
sympathy. Whatever he may think of the means 
adopted, or ‘their probable result, he cannot but 
rejoice that a principle so eminently his own, 
namey, that Catholic Unity is a Divine ideal 
and an unspeakable blessing to the human race, 
begins to find, at last, a wider recognition. The 
following extracts will illustrate the aim and 
means of the two schools mentioned, while the 
admirable letter of Cardinal Manning marks and 
explains the attitude of Catholics towards them, 


APPENDIX. 6r1 


I, The Review of the Churches to its Readers 


“The tendency of religion in our day is towards union. 
“The controversies to which most of our Churches owe their 
‘rise have lost much of their interest for us : some of them are 
“hardly intelligible. The great landmarks of Christianity 
“God and His love, Christ and His salvation, mankind and 
“their brotherhood, remain, and will remain. They are words 
“of life. But the excitement about exact definitions in 
“theology, and correct precedents in Church government has 
“largely passed away. ‘The medieval Church tried to build up 
“a tower of dogma whose top should reach to heaven, and one 
“result was a confusica of tongues. Now we are trying to 
“recover the universal language. Creeds divide: life draws 
“together ; and we are seeking in the slender and grander 
“thoughts of religion the nourishment of a warmer common 
“life. The way is open to large measures of unification. 
“© = 6 Complete union may be impossible, even in the 
‘ long run. Some of the chasms in our thought are very deep. 
* But without actual fusion of sects there may be federation ; 
‘and even without federation there may be common action. 
*““Of the leading Churches of Britain, the Presbyterians, 
* Baptists, Congregationalists, and Methodists, and large 
“sections of the Church of ‘England, differ only in minor 
“points, and if they chose, could easily work together. And 
“no one can doubt that if they worked together they would 
“have an enormously increased power over the evils of our 
“times. In any case, union cannot be hurried. Men who 
“have grown up in different habits, and worked in dif- 
“ferent ways, cannot all at once abandon their peculiarities 
“and make common cause. Some sects, indeed, might be 
“joined at once; but for most the process must take time, 
“The main point is to be moving in the right direction, Each 
“Church should aim at simplifying its ideas, and getting to 
‘understand the ways of its neighbours. The way to sim- 
 plicity is knowledge: and the way to union ts mutual know- 


612 APPENDIX, 


“‘ledge. It is with these views that this journal is established. 
“Its founders believe that union is desirable, and to a large 
“extent possible ; and that a wider sympathy and closer co- 
“operation are not far off. They hope to do much to make 
“the thoughts and ways of the different Churches of Christen- 
“dom familiar to each other, and so to foster a spirit of 
“‘senuine Catholicity. The round arch on their cover may 
“stand for a symbol of this idea, when it recalls the time when 
‘Western Europe was, at least in form, one in Christ. . . 
“ Following the plan of aiming first at bringing nearer together 
“those who are already not far off, the Review has been placed 
“under a junta /of five Special Editors, one of whom will 
“represent each of the five leading divisions of British 
“Religion: the Anglican (Dr. Farrar), the Presbyterian (Dr. 
“Donald Fraser), the Baptist (Dr. Clifford), the Congregational 
(Dr. Mackennal), and the Methodist (Mr. Bunting). Each 
‘will be responsible only for matter which may appear under 
“his own signature ‘The whole Review will be managed by 
“the General Editor, Dr. Lunn, who will be responsible for all 
“unsigned matter. In the case of the Anglican Church it is 
“not likely that any one man will be accepted as representing 
“sympathetically all the varying views of the great parties — 
“which find place within its ample fold; but this want, as 
“well as the information to come from other great bodies— 
“the Roman Catholics, the Unitarians, the Society of Friends, 
“the Salvation Army, and others—will be supplied, partly, by 
“the aid of writers of their own,” 


LI. Reply of Cardinal Manning. 


“My peaR Dr. Lunn,—I will not again refuse to send you 
“a few words, but it is difficult for me to do more than listen — 
“to the voices which are reviewing ‘the Churches,’ 

“In May, 1848, I saw and spoke for the first time with 
“Pius IX. He questioned me at length about the Christianity 
“of England, and about the multiplicity of good and charitable 


APPENDIX. 613 


“works done by Anglicans and Dissenters, ending with the 
“Quakers and the great prison reformation of Mrs. Fry. He 
“then leaned back in his chair, and said, as if to himself, 
“*The English do a multitude of good works: and when 
“men do good werks God always pours out His grace. My 
“poor prayers are offered day by day for England.’ Since 
“that time every year has multiplied all kinds of good works 
“in England, There can be no doubt that an especial power / 
“of the Holy Ghost has breathed and is still breathing over 
“our people. I gladly ,repeat the words of Pius» IX., for I 
“rejoice over the good works which cover the face of our 
“country. My daily prayer is for England, and so far as it 
“has been in my power I have shared your good works and 
“united with your peaceful and beneficent aims. In the 
“words which open your first number I heartily apreesen You 
“say, ‘The tendency of religion in our day is towards union,’ 
“There has grown up in the last fifty years a vivid sense or 
“instinct that division is evil, and the source of evils. The 
“desire and prayers for the re-union of Christendom have 
“created movements and organisation both in the Anglican 
“and in the Dissenting bodies, and your Review oF THE 
“CHURCHES is its latest and most resolute manifestation, 

“When I held hack from writing as one of your con- 
“tributors it was not from any slackness in desiring that all 
“our hearts may be drawn into unity, but unwilling to strike 
‘fa note out of harmony with you. You have many Ways of 
‘seeking union, We have but one. Union in good works 
*“has indeed a constraining moral influence in bringing the 
“most remote men together, and charity is a way to Truth; 
«Tf any man will do fiis will he shall know of the doctrine 
“whether it be of God.’ This is a safe course for those who 
“are divided from each other. Controversy repels, but charity 
“unites. Your present action cannot fail to bring many minds 
“into closer union of goodwill. 

“But this is neither our need nor method. Union is not 


614 APPENDIX. 


“unity. And unity is not the creation of human wills, but 
“of the Divine. It does not spring up from the earth: it 
“descends from heaven. S. Cyprian truly describes it as the 
“raiment of our Lord, ‘without seam, woven Jrom the top 
“throughout by heavenly sacraments.” It is Truth that 
“generates Unity, and it can be recovered only by the same 
‘principle and from the same source from which it descended 
**in the beginning. 

“Mr. Price Hughes has quoted, he says with surprise, some 
“words of mine from a book on the ‘Internal Mission of the 
‘Holy Ghost.’ There was no need for surprise ; for these 
“words are only the Catholic doctrine of the universality of 
“Grace. And they pre-suppose the doctrine of the visible 
“Church, which has not only a visible body, but also an 
“invisible soul. The soul of the Church is as old as Abel, 
“‘and as wide as the race of mankind. It embraces every soul 
“of man who has lived, or at least has died, in union with God 
“by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. Nearly thirty years 
“ago I published all this in answer to my friend, the late 
‘Dr. Pusey, ina letter on ‘The Workings of the Spirit in the 
“Church of England.’ This letter has been lately reprinted 
“by Messrs. Burns and Oates. Thus far then I can lay a basis 
“on which to write and to hope with all your contributors. 
“We believe that the Holy Ghost breathes throughout the 
“world, and gathers into union with God, and to eternal life, 
“all those who faithfully co-operate with His hght and grace, 
“None are responsible for dying zncwdpably out of the visible 
“ Body of the Church. They only are culpable who knowingly 
“and wilfully reject its divine voice when sufficiently known to 
“them. But I must not go on, for you are seeking union 
‘in agreements, and I have no will to strike a discordant note. 
“You say truly ‘the controversies to which most of our 
“Churches owe their rise have lost much of their interest for 
‘us ; some of them are hardly intelligible.’ 

“TI have two great advantages. I can hope and embrace 


APPENDIX. 615 


“you ir the Soul of the Church, and IT can rejoice in all, and 
“gladly share in many of your good works. 
‘“ May the Holy Ghost renew His own unity in Truth |” 


Believe me, 
My dear Dr. Lunn, 
Yours very truly, 
HENRY E. CARD. MANNING. 


Archbishop's House, 
October 30th, 189%. 


III. The Association for Promoting the Unity of Christendom. 


“To all who believe the prophecies of the Old Testament, 
“and the words of our Lord and His Apostles in the New, the 
“present divided state of Christendom must be a matter of 
“perplexity, and ought to be a cause of deep sorrow and 
“humiliation. To many it has proved an occasion of settled 
“doubt or indifference, while not a few find in it a plausible 
“pretext for unbelief. ‘Through our divisions the principle of 
* authority, embodied in S. Augustine’s famous rule, Securas 
““judicat orbis terrarum, is seriously compromised ; the con- 
“version of the heathen, who, after eighteen centuries, number 
“more than three-fourths of mankind, is almost at a standstill ; 
“while among professing Christians mutual strife has taken the 
“place of mutual edification, and every country in Europe is 
*““honeycombed with open or secret infidelity. All this is so 
* obvious on the face of it that it is admitted as soon as it is 
‘stated. No sincere believer will deny in the abstract, the 
“disastrous results of disunion, or the duty of seeking to 
* promote by all available means that unity which our Lord 
“enjoined on His followers, and for which He thrice prayed 
“in His great Eucharistic intercession before His Passion. 
“Vet, strarige to say, when they are asked to go a step further, 
“and bestir themselves for the attainment of so desirable an 
* object, the vast multitude of Christian men with one consent 
“begin to make excuse. Many content themselves with 


616 APPENDIX. : 


“urging-—-what of course is true—that their first duty is 
“towards their own communion, and thence infer that it will. 
“be time enough to think about the reunion of Christendom 
“when they have secured more unity of sentiment and action 
“at home. To which it is enough to reply that theological 
“party spirit is mainly fostered by that weakening of the 
“evidences of faith, which inevitably results from disunion, 
“and that the surest cure for internal divisions is the restora- 
“tion of visible unity. But the chief objection to taking any 
“action in the matter, which underlies all others, and is often 
“felt or implied when it is not put into words, is this—that it is 
“idle to aim at what is virtually unattainable, and the prospect 
“of reunion lies too far out of sight for a practical man to 
“waste time and trouble in twisting ropes of sand. The 
“answer is twofold. In the first place, that cannot be un- 
“attainable which has once been attained ; and, after making 
“all allowance for the existence of some not inconsiderable 
“sects, especially in the East, for above a thousand years, the 
“principle of corporate unity was, in the main, visibly preserved 
“throughout Christendom, and for five centuries more through- 
“out the Christian West, which is now so miserably divided. 
““Nor can it for a moment be supposed that our Divine Lord 
‘insisted on the paramount importance and obligation for all 
“time of what is in this age impossible; the unity of His 
‘disciples was to be, as it in fact became, the witness to the 
“world of His mission, while their divisions have taught the 
_ “world to reject Him. In the next place, it is not true that 
“the proposed aim is unpracticable, or that nothing can be 
“done towards attaining it. That this it no sentimental want 
“may be inferred at once from the grave practical evils already 
“referred to, and on which volumes might be written, which 
“are the fruits of disunion. It is equally certain that each one 
“of us may, and in fact does, contribute his quota towards 
“furthering or thwarting the cause of unity. Everyone, how- 
“ever insignificant, exerts a certain influence, by his words, 


— 4 


APPENDIX. 617 


“acts, and habitual tone, though it he within a limited sphere ; 
‘clergymen and others in a public position often exert a con- 
“siderable influence. And the sum total of all this personal 
“influence goes to make up what is called public opinion, 
“which, more, perhaps, in our own, than in any previous age, 
“constitutes the dominant power in ihe world, and to a certain 
“extent, in the Church also. How far that power shall tell for 
“or against reunion, ‘depends ultimately, therefore, on the 
“attitude assumed towards the question by each separate in- 
“dividual. And let all remember, whether their opportunities of 
“moulding opinion be great or small, that they are responsible 
“to God for the use of them.” 

“One enormous means of power is, however, open equally 
“to all, of whatever age, rask, or position, in proportion to 
“their holiness; and that means is prayer. That Christians 
‘should refuse to labour for an object commended to them 
“by the express injunction and dying prayer of their Saviour, 
“because they do not clearly see their way to its attainment, 
“Is sufficiently startling , that they should neglect to pray for 
“it, is nothing short of an implicit avowal of unbelief, either in 
“the reality of His promises, or the efficacy of prayer. Are 
“we not exhorted to “weary” God with our importunities ? 
“ But if men say ‘We can pray for this intention by ourselves, 
«why should we join a Society like the ‘ Association for Pro- 
***moting the Unity of Christendom’ in order to do so?’ the 
“reply is a very simple one. Certainly, they can pray for 
“unity by themselves, and they may have good reasons against 
“joining this or that particular Association, on which their 
“own consciences must decide, But they should bear in mind 
“that to intercede as members of a Society, united in a 
*‘common bond for a common end, is a great incentive to 
“regularity and earnestness in prayer; and still more, that all 
“the reasons for intercession apply with tenfold force to united 
“intercession. He who has bidden us to pray always, and not 
“to faint, has also told us that when two or three are agreed 


618 APPENDIX. 


“to ask anything in His name, it shall be done for them. Not 
“for one but for ten righteous men would God vouchsafe to 
‘spare the guilty Sodom. Who can say what might not at 
“this eleventh hour be effected by the combined supplication, 
“not of ten, but of tens of thousands of believing Christians, 
‘‘banded together in a holy league, to intercede for the city 
“of God, the new Jerusalem, ‘ which spiritually is called Sodom, 
“‘*where also,’ in this her hour of trial, ‘our Lord’ is being 
‘daily ‘crucified’? To united prayer belongs a ‘suppliant 
‘omnipotence,’ limited only by the will of Him who is more 
“ready to hear than we to pray, and in pleading for the peace 
‘and unity of His Church we know that we are asking for 
“what is agreeable to His holy will. If we really and earnestly 
“desired that blessed consummation, we should make it the 
“object of our definite, constant, persevering endeavours, above 
“fall of definite, united, daily prayer. Because we have failed 
“to do so, and have thought in our hearts that some things 
‘are impossible with God, He stays His hand. To us, with our 
“bitter controversies, our proud isolation, our rival Churches, 
*fand countless jarring sects, the words are even now addressed, 
*“*Ve fight and war, but ye have not, because ye ask not.’ 
“The Redeemer taught us by His dying intercession that te 
“ask for unity was not to ‘ask amiss,’” 


eye Analy 


WENDT AL AE 


seay sees 


o48 


yaa | 


evive 


a 
e 


vab vidoe nt 


Vue desde 


- 
~ 
” 
4 
S 
w 
om 
=I 
- 
s: 
~ 
7 
= 
ca 
“ 
a 
= 
a 
ie 
= 


iat 
J 


ae rg ved 


bf 


bate 


2 


‘4 


oesepese 


La 
6 REND AS DAVE 


#s° 


Fatale TA ae 6 


burke vent 


: 


4ey) 


Yevsvexe 


Ce eat 


ths apas 


eRe HeKt 


bs 


evkie 


severe 


ieee 
aig notr ates Dea R CN paw ee 
RS AS es Site R yt Bee: 
Seisenane Rea Sepak Seeger : : 


at I sche ia cose rower nl ne sep Soca bce : rine 
oe ea ae Ge Te EEE BEEP O EE > . Seine Cte 
he ON > . ni ~ nae > <—_ e A eines . 
Pore rere EOE ey PE ae PRR ED SGT ERLE ES DELON TE COREG CREO CECE 
Per Ree poe SPR EPR Re Bee 


Mean. 
SESS 


et eee aS 
aE at ae ae ee ar are 


erat 

SARs 
tu ere tere Semcon seer cp terese es tenire renee na Seat ere node eee 
Sa a eI SLES RY SSS 


No 
enero ane eee 
ney ma" 


mere ins eT hore asenine sao sutyarneten Seana 
a a a re 
AS secon Se cot Ses nore se tenanate tenes Rann ntelS tae 

EIR OORT SEL GLI CALLE 
prekdeealotuihcietel foloARA 
SRR EASE Ie 
Riniat icin sonefeielpeinlgt ihe 
cerepeaere recon. 

myenncieeceaate 

ESSERE SE, 


sete tate seguem bars ene Se sans RPA NE a we vipnbnene ne mune nomen 
EEE Sipe er eine a ean neinea gactanne yew aero re 
es Sana ums hemanerate-ma ps Shognas 
Se ae ee are 


sistonmeaan euneoush once 
PO 


sossjesreraneeressyautunasaresenin 
anor a ea 
eens repervesviyet 
PERE EES. 


sev gesetiseneen hu: 
OE ans 


TUS Mer NR AU setae e nS UNM enn ec scapes 
CS ee a pre eas 


pezehuda dadoen phe Sh rete varancteneterene tern eae 
Sa a PD ny Sea a ae 
Ca nvaterary le hetenet Minin 
EEE er ee! 


sitar tiranstonats nuhch erage 
ronan aran wena ana sheers ars 


sonesinure Send thragamanecesets te muledababehetineninanet 

ores ee ene wae a ae 
Tha Secon ae atta enfant 
POE LEO 


rasa togee serune su Saya serets Tate seneseees tet asatsoniee nar eter eme th cs cares sree ge masasarsmucan 
ee a Se 3 > a a a I ier OTS 
sy Seranecesers se semerans re Me se; 
MR EEE EEE ES. 
Sess se nasue sete teraneh unvta ne une se sacynacetinesatene 
Ss beh etapa 
Sonne sense penssen eta fe rd Ene SAN pete See 
pseasrcseeieoenrenaeueunsnenvssetincestrenae 
ASN rete nar ce negenetaie sa Hama Sotee ALT ATOR. 
DEES a PEO OEE E COE Gane 
ADEN eee tesenese 
RE ORCC Sas 
ASN tat Sane tenererason satiny 
ro ar 


carbs acescent se senes arena nn oaca ene saranarseie 
Feder sarsrarameraretisaresanereritesat eas Sa TentnemenUnne tee Nne 
EE eee 


BO Se GOR EE RAEN See see 


Penn 


eebetip eats esr erro 


Se. nons es 1 pa terme: 96 08 Pere ae gam a 
PERE Re EAA OP eT pan eee REA TO ELEN 
ahi iiedetiak ckrass Sasvnaioaees : A 
eos nse mee 
rated ray tool eSe Catnip Wi x Repth a a eat hy 
SAP crea eee Pee Maa Pee ea 


Renee hemenrsen 


se AA Aner een ae ee ee 
PION One ge Ma ee owe eee 


perin gent ibtterg ne 
Seer rr eT er 


PERRET EERO 
RR eee 
Neerae rep eons 
eee anny 


mecpnurarerstecegetirotatiear nun asin ve 
are ee oe oe a 


sptintenuten vm srinanenacacmenicir tts a: 
Ra mT Ca 


ie Se unaeamed nina: erent unnge 
I eee 


Sateoeeceeat ee 
a tar are aa ae ae rar erie 
Arazase smn vacate ie 
SE geen ge 


DSDectetsAinbsnAnanarieamynseiphamanaions 
re are ea par rer any 


sSovtecunienee iedmas pourra 
eae sewer ae Snes ae 
sehesranigorimscinics isenen tad ns 
eR ee 
canstandssasnbeskwioranunge inion 
paneata een anene 
sramsainunstanas 
PEE ESR RA eens 
rere 
soe erste 


par es en eeanpburioar aearimennihe- 
ae aE 


orca tote, 
“a atieta infatatnrhn aha 


ona cone 


aenaner 
ear re 


Se manee vn par Steen 


a ger ience eu ee pate eye gee 


aocanssset anon 
ad ee 


NE CECE he ane an EE 
retenachtalures eipncirera tera sar er enaracwrenbe eNotes searvedtaniret he 


eaeeee: 
EEE EN aE ea EE SET 

oS ALATA Remerena size: 
ee ee Ree et ae wee en ee rT ras 


eran Ueaner aeemisbeabiteed reds eanatenes pratense imyrun itera beter re neat wags cant ba) rac ery taunyee 
2 pie are rere Seca os 

nazanecewatannnss 

ctr 


nero tech 49267 Coaeaenengnnres geyanec. 


he Ne habe BUT ET MAING We Sd Ne Se Rinne M6 NOME: 

Sa rer aera oe 
Ear wredamererspeyyr nine sored Hives fevrenncty ev efhnbpnlyieer sieved resin 
Ke fete eee Ber EE BREE EEE, 
Sepeniaetenatgenep tenia nemed Lumetanannnunetatins primase tee ee 
LLL ELL OE EERE EL EE LEE 


Sane rantssc nt toi Seer rd i a ne 


pore er aes para 


 DigestasehicnseMtyswranetetan ratio d yg weneae 


SS ee eR aE ¥ Se ai ne ere Serra 


weaned 


Gar amedehomncanien 
MP earaew sree ea a 


nnneeaenesoe beats Se4usnsanstany 


Sor epee as rae oars 


eeteness “ne i“ ne Saran a ha Dene Aas nan sa: 
sereatee Saindtincatofon Rt web 
ere Diet 
yeaa ers 
Samhita asnanemind nich 
So hsearerrernnre 


aes 


ras etebe sapethe sat: eich nae bauAs Oo ha 
ao Sr SENS Gatedepcbep teenth ai 
dicdgany Aa NcotMunpetysiAinase aric6 In Ae RUAIA UNA WALAS pus 
Sera area re rae ee eons 


ee 


(a Stn egnmnenmtensleon 
Bre Vad reer ena es 


aos 


SAS ape Pk eas Memon 
ne eine ee 


ALP arabe re’ ase 
AD wd ea 
yee OE 
EEE OO Re Oe ee 


spar be 
EPC meee ree ee 

mesa TeNEU ear stecaretetnnanirer amet enesi 

OP EEC Ree ere rere 


anesarieacseyratunssireraniter 
COE LOTS ees 


iabnas aiscnimbsasnasanceiaiea 
RC R EE aeergaetnatan 


arabes apatite 
Sebasmavieunasleunavad spina tanear iy 
epee serene 


pee eete, 


ae genio eet aes eos ar aas 


rhs brn stararanbyonar ater: 
oe 


peer ts ehs 


ehtebtt: 


seh abot ore ram 

ee een 
aren Sean wae PA 32 ses anand tage ip ene Ooh 
or Sr 


a a a nar aan wana ah 
Pale ae hana <a ones e ONE TS 


abe wha 
ctor ara 
Shot $A us tear aC SON eamioWrcANe sre 
Dre ne at be ees rare Sera 


45 beet og ster ee Tron 
Sooners 


Matemgarsnereme bc ees 
OS 


rian gh s0 car sen a anna roe bt 
GRE SESE AS SEES 


ment ateren aceon ae, 
eee ere 


Parerrernnerrineen yy eee 
REESE SS 


8 99 32 alae 9108 
eg aaa 


Sspropenicegezstarsnueeetae 
SACSEREESS ERAS, 
ine at a Saeko 
Sear SiAet 


Serreree ot Se TOP bat ym aT Ue a Nat A hah 98 oh ah ah 
Sa Ia ea EN SSIES 
as end Anarnt ana ohat ar enisheween sphn ahd ot ba 
$ ere eae 
wr: 


rena on a  Onae Ay 
Se SSeS 


MERE RoR ES 


